UC-NRlf 


iiiiiiiiiiiiii  nil  mil  mil  I  nil  1 1  nil  III 
B    3    37M     MMfl 


TI-IE 

ELEMENTS 


I  {    BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION,    i 


REV.  L.  A,  SAWYER,  A.  M 


1834. 


-'V^'V'^^^.-V^'*.  v%.-v  ^  w  ■x^^*-'^  ■<*. -V  ^  ^*J(^ 


<w-v  ^<^  ^  ^-^-^-*. 


THE  ELEMENTS 


BIBLICAL    INTERPRETATION, 

CONTAINING     A      BRIEF 

EXPOSITION  OF  THE  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLES 

AND 

RULES    OF    THIS    SCIENCE. 


REV, j:..  A.  SAWYER,  A.  M., 

Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  IVkirtinsburg,  N.  T. 


NEW- YORK: 
LEAVITT,    LORD    &,     CO 

BOSTON :— CROCKER  &  BREWSTER. 


West  *   Trow,   Printi 


1834. 


53 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1834,  by 
L.  A.  Sawyer,  in  the  Clerk's  Oflace  of  the  District  Court  of  the  South- 
ern District  of  New-York. 


fS'2-^^ 


V^      or  THE        ■    '^     % 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION 


SECTION   I. 

Introductory    Remarks. 

1.  Ignorance  of  the  principles  and  rules  of  inter- 
pretation, is  one  of  the  greatest  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  obtaining  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  Bible.  Lan- 
guage is  a  medium  of  communication  between  man 
and  his  fellow  man.  Through  this  medium  the 
thouo^hts,  desires,  and  determinations  of  one  mind  are 
made  known  to  another.  God  has  made  communica- 
tions to  the  world,  and  in  condescension  to  human 
weakness,  has  made  these,  by  the  instrumentality  of 
liuman  language.  He  did  not  form  a  new  language 
to  be  the  medium  of  communication  between  himself 
and  his  creatures,  but  made  use  of  that  already  formed 
and  in  use  by  men.  Neither  did  he  construct  this 
lano^uage  anew  to  make  it  answer  his  purpose  ;  he 
took  it  just  as  it  was,  and  used  it  just  as  he  found  it, 
for  the  benevolent  purpose  of  instructing  his  creatures 
in  the  way  of  life  and  salvation.  In  the  earlier  ages 
of  the  world  he  found  the  Hebrew  in  use,  and  he  then 
made  his  communications  in  that :  In  later  times,  the 
Hebrew  being    less  generally   understood,  and   the 


4  BIBLICAL    INTERPRETATION. 

Greek  more  generally  known,  he  made  his  communi- 
cations in  Greek.  Having  made  his  communications 
once,  he  leaves  them  to  he  studied  and  interpreted  hy 
his  subjects ;  to  be  studied  in  the  same  manner  in 
which  we  study  other  writings,  and  to  be  interpreted 
by  the  same  rules. 

Those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the  original 
languages,  may  still  have  the  benefit  of  this  blessed 
volume  translated  into  their  vernacular  tongues.- by 
learned  and  pious  men.  Translations  are  made  into 
almost  all  modern  languages,  which  are  extensively 
used,  and  many  of  them  are  made  with  the  greatest 
possible  care,  and  by  men  equally  distinguished  for 
their  learning  and  piety.  Our  common  translation 
was  not  only  made  with  the  greatest  care,  by  men  of 
distinguished  learning  and  piety ;  but  it  has  received 
the  approbation  of  a  long  list  of  worthies  of  all  ortho- 
dox denominations  of  Christians. 

2.  But  in  whatever  method  the  fountain  of  divine 
truth  is  approached,  we  ought  to  be  mainly  anxious  to 
drink  of  its  healing  waters.  Whether  we  read  the  sa- 
cred Scriptures  in  their  original  or  in  our  own  verna- 
cular tongues,  we  ought  to  be  careful  to  understand 
them  aright. 

The  truths  of  the  Bible  can  do  us  good  only  as  far 
as  we  understand  and  apply  them.  Just  as  far  as  we 
misunderstand  the  Bible,  and  mistake  its  meaning,  we 
lose  the  benefits  which  it  is  designed  to  convey,  and 
subject  ourselves  to  the  evils  it  was  intended  to  cor- 
rect. 

While  a  right  understanding  of  the  Bible  is  ad- 
mitted by  all  candid  and  intelligent  students  of  it,  to 


BIBLICAL    INTERPRETATION. 


5 


]>e  of  incalculable  benefit  and  of  inestimable  value : 
and  wliile  so  many  loose  and  erroneous,  and  contra- 
dictory views  are  entertained  on  the  subject  of  its  com- 
munications, it  is  truly  surprising  that  biblical  inter- 
pretation has  not  been  more  generally  a  subject  of  in- 
vestigation and  inquiry. 

Other  branches  of  knowledge  have  received  at 
least  a  share  of  public  attention  ;  this  has  by  the 
multitude  been  almost  entirely  overlooked  and  ne- 
glected. Indeed  it  is  hardly  known  by  many  a  fierce 
religious  disputant  and  wrangler  in  our  land,  that  there 
is  any  such  science  as  that  of  Biblical  Interpretation. 

But  though  neglected  by  the  common  people,  be- 
lievers and  unbelievers,  the  most  accurate  biblical 
scholars  have  devoted  to  it  a  large  share  of  their  at- 
tention. In  the  seats  of  learning,  and  by  the  most  suc- 
cessful cultivators  of  biblical  knowledge,  it  has  been 
studied  with  increasing  interest  and  benefit,  both  to 
themselves  and  the  world  with  whom  they  communi- 
cate. 

Lectures  and  other  scientific  instructions  are  given 
on  this  subject  in  our  best  theolo^rical  seminaries,  and 
the  ablest  expounders  of  God's  word  are  devoting 
themselves  to  this  study  with  singular  assiduity  and 
zeal. 

3.  An  essay  on  the  subject  of  biblical  interpreta- 
tion briefly  explaining  its  fundamental  principles  and 
rules,  and  presenting  them  to  view  in  their  mutual  re- 
lations and  dependences,  has  long  been  needed  and 
desired  by  at  least  a  respectable  portion  of  the  Chris- 
tian public.  There  is  nothing  of  this  kind  in  circula- 
tion at  present  in  this  country.  Prof.  Stuart's  trans- 
it 


D  BIBLICAL    INTERPRETATION. 

latioii  of  Ernesti  is  not  adapted  to  interest  and  instruct 
the  general  reader,  though  deeply  interesting  to  the 
accurate  classical  and  biblical  scholar. 

4.  In  the  present  elementary  treatise  an  endea- 
vor has  been  made  to  exhibit  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples and  rules  of  biblical  interpretation,  in  such  a 
manner,  as  to  place  them  within  the  reach  and  com- 
prehension of  every  intelligent  reader  of  the  English 
language.  These  rules  are  accompanied  with  such 
illustrations  and  examples,  as  will  sufficiently  evince 
their  truth  and  show  their  application.  The  system 
of  interpretation  which  is  taught  in  this  essay,  is 
substantially  the  same  as  that  of  Ernesti ;  technical 
expressions  however  are  generally  avoided,  as  being 
ill  adapted  to  instruct  the  great  body  of  the  Christian 
community  for  whose  benefit  this  essay  is  more  par- 
ticularly designed. 

5.  In  applying  the  following  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion to  the  Bible,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the  holy 
word  of  God  is  to  be  approached  with  the  profound- 
est  reverence.  Rash  and  hasty  judgments  are  not  for 
a  moment  to  be  tolerated  in  relation  to  those  vitally 
important  subjects,  which  the  Bible  unfolds  to  our 
view.  Here,  if  any  where,  when  examining  this 
blessed  book  if  ever,  we  are  to  proceed  with  delibera- 
tion, and  judge  with  candor  and  caution.  How  much 
is  lost  by  a  neglect  to  do  this,  no  tongue  can  tell,  no 
pen  describe,  no  pencil  paint.  Much  of  the  error  in 
faith  and  practice,  with  which  the  world  is  flooded, 
may  be  traced  to  this  prolific  source;  men  leap  to  their 
conclusions  on  religious  subjects,  before  they  well  un- 
derstand the  premises ;  and  those  conclusions  are  such 


BIBLICAL    INTERPRETATION.  7 

as  suit  their  own  misguided  fancy,  whether  they  can  be 
educed  from  the  word  of  God  by  fair  means  or  foul. 

Many  undertake  the  study  of  the  Bible  with  their 
ultimate  conclusions  all  predetermined.  They  look 
into  itj  not  to  hear  all  that  God  is  pleased  to  say,  for  the 
purpose  of  deterring  them  from  sin,  and  exciting  them 
to  seek  holiness  and  heaven ;  but  to  see  what  they  can 
find,  to  estabhsh  themselves  in  this  and  that  favorite 
opinion.  That  such  persons  should  make  much  pro- 
gress in  sound  scriptural  knowledge  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected. They  do  not  labor  to  correct  their  errors 
and  enlarge  their  views,  a  work  which  cannot  be  ac- 
complished without  labor.  They  only  strive  to  con- 
firm themselves  in  their  preconceived  opinions :  in 
that  they  generally  succeed,  no  matter  how  absurd 
those  opinions  may  be. 

6.  Let  the  work  of  Biblical  Interpretation  be  un- 
dertaken with  honesty  and  humility.  Human  opi- 
nions are  an  empty  sound,  and  even  learning  is  a 
vain  show  when  arrayed  against  the  truths  of  the 
Bible. 

Truth  will  stand;  it  is  destined  to  a  glorious 
and  universal  triumph.  It  will  bless  and  comfort  all 
those  who  hold  it  in  rigfhteousness.  It  has  outlived 
the  scoffs  of  the  most  heaven-daring  infidels.  The 
mists  of  scepticism  cannot  conceal  and  essentially  dark- 
en it,  the  storms  of  persecution  have  been  unable  to 
sweep  it  away.  Woe  to  the  man  who  lifts  up  his 
puny  hand  against  divine  truth.  In  doing  this,  he 
rebels  against  God,  and  treasures  up  wrath  against 
the  day  of  wrath  to  be  poured  out  upon  his  guilty 
soul. 


y  BIBLICAL    INTERPRETATION. 

Joy  to  that  man  who  is  on  the  side  of  truth. 
Truth  will  be  on  his  side.  If  he  has  taken  the 
part  of  truth  ao^ainst  an  angry  and  unbeUeving  world, 
truth  will  take  his  part  against  all  that  may  threaten 
to  disturb  his  peace  and  destroy  his  soul.  By  God's 
truth  he  shall  be  sanctified,  and  being  sanctified  shall 
enjoy  a  blissful  eternity  with  him,  whose  words  are 
truth,  whose  favor  is  life,  whose  loving-kindness  is 
better  than  life. 

The  work  of  biblical  interpretation  is  easy  to  the 
candid,  attentive  and  prayerful  inquirer.  By  such  the 
principles  and  leading  rules  of  this  interesting  science, 
will  be  readily  apprehended.  To  the  captions  and  ca- 
viling, they  will  be  more  diflacult  of  acquisition  :  but 
yet,  I  do  not  despair  of  affording  them  some  aid,  if  they 
will  patiently  examine  the  subject  by  the  light  of  their 
good  common  sense,  to  see  if  these  things  are  so. 


SECTION    II. 
THE  RULES  OR  LAWS  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

What    is    first   to    be    dose. 

1.  The  first  business  of  an  interpreter  is  to  deter- 
mine the  meaning  of  words.  No  communication  can 
be  correctly  understood  or  explained,  without  an  accu- 
rate knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  in  which 
it  is  expressed.  If  one  or  more  important  words  of  a 
communication  are  misapprehended  and  wrong  ideas 
attached  to  them  by  the  reader  or  hearer,  the  commu- 
nication will  be  so  far  misunderstood  and  wrongly 
interpreted.  Language  cannot  be  correctly  interpre- 
ted without  the  most  careful  attention  to  words,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  their  precise  meanings.  Ne- 
gliofence  here  is  the  cause  of  many  errors,  and  is  of 
itself  hiofhly  criminal ;  and  yet  we  are  not  unfrequently 
guilty  of  it  to  a  very  high  degree  in  the  study  of  the 
Bible,  the  most  important,  and  in  some  respects  the 
most  difficult,  of  all  studies. 

2.       DEFINITION    OF    THIS    SCIENCE. 

Interpretation  is  the  science  which  teaches  how  to 
ascertain  and  explain  the  true  meaning  of  language. 


10  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

All  intelligent  persons  are  more  or  less  familiar  with 
the  art  of  doing  this,  though, few  have  ever  studied 
minutely  its  principles.  The  interpretation  of  lan- 
guage is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  use  of  it, 
that  every  man  is  compelled  to  make  himself  in  some 
measure  master  of  the  art.  And  yet  no  man  can  be 
completely  master  of  this,  any  more  than  of  any 
other  art,  without  an  accurate  acquaintance  with  its 
principles  and  rules. 

3.     GENERAL    PRINCIPLES    RELATING  TO  THE    MEAN- 
ING   OF    SINGLE    W^ORDS. 

1.  Every  word  has  some  meaning  either  of  itself, 
or  else  as  qualifying  the  meaning  of  other  words  and 
pointing  out  their  mutual  relations  and  dependences. 
The  only  use  of  words  is  to  stand  for  ideas  and  to 
serve  as  a  medium  for  communicating  them  ;  if  there- 
fore any  word  had  no  meaning,  it  would  be  entirely 
useless. 

The  meaning  and  power  of  words  is  determined 
by  usage  and  custom.  There  is  necessarily  a  kind  of 
general  agreement  among  those  who  use  any  particu- 
lar language,  that  particular  words  shall  stand  for 
particular  ideas  and  objects.  Thus  man,  time,  earth, 
heaven,  &c.,  stand  for  particular  objects,  and  designate 
them  in  distinction  from  all  others,  by  the  general  con- 
sent of  those  who  use  the  English  language. 

2.  Most  words  have  more  than  one  meaning,  or 
admit  of  some  modifications  of  the  general  idea  for 
which  they  stand. 

Thus  heat  denotes,  first,  a  substance  which  exists 
in  the  natural  world,  and  which  enters  into  the  com- 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  11 

position  of  natural  bodies ;  secondly,  the  sensation 
produced  by  that  substance  on  the  animal  frame ; 
thirdly,  animal  excitement,  ardor. 

So  the  word  spirit  denotes,  first,  animal  excite- 
ment, ardor ;  as  when  we  say  of  soldiers,  they  fought 
with  great  spirit ;  secondly,  the  soul  of  man  or  of 
other  creature,  an  incorporeal  thinking  being ;  as 
when  we  speak  of  the  spirit  of  man  going  upward  to 
God  at  death,  when  we  say  that  God  is  a  spirit,  that 
he  maketh  his  angels  spirits,  (fee. ;  thirdly,  temper,  dis- 
position ;  as  when  we  say  of  a  man,  that  he  showed  a 
good  spirit  or  a  bad  spirit,  meaning  evidently,  that  he 
showed  a  good  or  bad  disposition  or  state  of  mind,  a 
good  or  bad  temper. 

Most  if  not  all  the  principal  words  in  our  lan- 
guage as  well  as  those  of  other  languages,  have  more 
than  one  meaning ;  or  at  least  some  diversity  of 
signification  growing  out  of  the  same  general 
idea. 

The  different  meanings  of  the  same  word  are  con- 
nected together  by  some  general  relations,  such  as 
similarity,  the  relation  of  cause  to  the  effect,  and  effect 
to  the  cause,  cfec. 

The  fact  that  many  words  have  more  meanings 
than  one,  deserves  special  consideration.  Many  per- 
sons too  often  overlook  it,  and  having  proved  that  a 
word  sometimes  and  in  some  connections,  has  a  parti- 
cular meaning;  infer  that  it  must  at  all  times  and  in  all 
places  have  the  same  meaning.  Such  pretended  proof 
is  entirely  fallacious.  The  fact  that  a  word  has  one 
particular  meaning  in  one  connection  and  in  relation 
to  one  subject,  is  no  proof  at  all.  that  it  has  the  same 


12  THE  RULES  OR  LAWS 

meaning  iu  a  different  connection  and  in  relation  to  a 
different  subject. 

In  view  of  this  subject  it  is  obvious  that  an  inter- 
preter ought  to  famiharize  himself  with  all  the  different 
meanings  of  important  words,  in  order  to  be  fully 
qualified  for  the  business  of  interpretation.  Otherwise 
he  will  be  in  great  danger  of  mistake,  m  applying  the 
meanings  he  is  familiar  with,  where  others  were  in- 
tended to  be  conveyed. 

3.  No  word,  has  more  than  one  meaning  in  one 
and  the  same  place.  Though  it  may  have  twenty 
meanings  in  different  places,  it  can  have  but  one  of 
them  in  any  one  place.  The  correctness  of  this  pro- 
position will  appear  from  a  careful  inspection  of  any 
part  of  language,  and  from  a  consideration  of  its  very 
nature.  When  I  use  a  particular  name  to  designate 
a  particular  object,  I  wish  it  to  be  understood  as  stand- 
ing for  that  object  and  no  other.  If  either  of  the  prin- 
cipal words  of  a  simple  sentence  had  two  meanings, 
that  sentence  would  express  two  simple  ideas:  if  two 
of  them  had  two  meanings  at  the  same  time,  that  sen- 
tence would  express  four  simple  ideas.  A  language 
constructed  on  this  principle  would  be  in  the  highest 
degree  confused.  It  would  be  an  anomaly  among  the 
languages  of  the  earth,  and  entirely  unfit  for  the  pur- 
poses of  social  hitercourse  and  instruction. 

4.  As  many  words  have  different  meanings,  the 
question  naturally  arises,  how  shall  we  determine 
which  of  those  meanings  is  intended  in  any  particular 
passage  ? 

Answer.  The  most  common  meaning  is  always  to 
be  chosen  where  the  nature  of  the  subject  or  context 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  lo 

does  not  clearly  indicate  another.  Where  different 
meanings  are  equally  common,  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject or  context  must  always  decide  which  are  to  be 
taken.  Thus  in  the  sentence,  '-God  is  a  spirit;"  we 
have  the  word  spirit,  which  is  used  in  different  senses. 
The  nature  of  the  subject  clearly  indicates  which  of 
the  meanings  is  intended  here ;  namely  that  God  is  an 
incorporeal  thinkins:  being.  The  other  meanings  of 
this  word,  though  common,  would  not  suit  this  pas- 
sage at  all,  and  therefore  we  with  propriety  infer 
that  they  could  not  have  been  intended  by  the  author 
of  the  declaration. 

5.  Most  words  are  capable  of  being  used  figura- 
tively to  express  different  ideas  from  those  to  which 
they  are  ordinarily  applied.  A  word  is  used  in  a  figu- 
rative sense  when  it  is  applied  to  some  object  or  ac- 
tion of  which  it  is  not  the  proper  name.  Thus  we  say 
that  anger  burns,  sin  is  a  venomous  disease,  where 
burns  and  venomous  disease  are  used  figuratively,  and 
the  meaning  is,  that  anger  is  excited,  and  that  sin  is 
like  a  venomous  disease  in  its  effects. 

The  most  important  figurative  expressions  and 
those  which  occasion  most  difficulty  to  the  interpreters, 
are  included  under  the  following  heads,  the  Metaphor, 
the  Allegory,  and  Metonymy. 

A  metaphor  is  a  word  expressing  similitude  without 
any  expressed  sign  of  comparison ;  as  God  is  a  con- 
suming fire  ;  meaning  that  God  is  like  a  consuming  fire, 
in  certain  particulars.  Metaphorical  expressions  are 
very  common,  both  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  and  in 
other  writings. 


14  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

An  allegory  is   a  continued  metaphor.     It  differs 
from  a  metaphor  only  in  being  drawn  oat  to  a  greater 
length.     As  there  is  an  implied  comparison  in  every 
metaphor,  so  in  an  allegory  the  suliject  of  discourse  is 
illustrated  by  a  familiar  representation  of  something 
else  resembling  that  subject  in  some  of  its   properties 
or  circumstances.     The  80th  Psalm  contains  one  of 
the  most  beautiful  allegories  in  the  language.     It  com- 
mences in  the  8th  verse    and  ends  with  the    16th. 
"  Thou  hast  brought  a  vine  out  of  Egypt, 
Thou  hast  cast  out  the  heathen,  I  planted  it 
Thou  preparedst  room  before  it,"  &c. 

In  this  allegory  God's  chosen  people  are  compared 
to  a  vine,  and  by  the  description  of  this  supposed  vine, 
several  facts  in  their  history  are  forcibly  brought  to 
mind  and  illustrated.  The  parables  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament are  allegorical  representations  in  which  the 
familiar  incidents  of  common  life  are  made  to  illus- 
trate important  religious  truths. 

Metonymy  is  the  use  of  one  word  for  another,  as 
cause  for  effect,  whole  for  a  part,  container  for  con- 
tained, &c.  As  "he  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on 
the  tree" ;  that  is  bare  the  effects  or  penalty  of  our  sins. 
"As  often  as  ye  drink  of  this  cup,"  that  is  of  the  liquor 
contained  in  it ;  "  There  went  out  to  him  all  Judea  and 
Jerusalem  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and 
were  baptized  of  him"  ;  that  is,  there  went  out  all  the 
people  of  Jerusalem,  Judea,  (fee. 

6.  The  design  of  figurative  language  is  to  illus- 
trate, embellish  and  enforce.  It  is  of  very  great  utiUty 
in  contributing  both  to  the  copiousness,  beauty,  and 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  15 

force  of  language  ;  and  renders  it  a  much  more  per- 
fect vehicle  of  thought,  than  it  could  otherwise  be. 
Some  writers  use  figurative  language  more  sparingly 
than  others.  Poetry  abounds  more  in  figurative  language 
than  prose.  The  oriental  writers  generally  use  figu- 
rative expressions  in  greater  profusion  than  those  of 
other  nations.  The  sacred  Scriptures  abound  in 
figurative  language  more  than  almost  any  other  wri- 
tings of  equal  extent.  On  this  account  the  biblical 
interpreter  ought  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  figurative  language  and  the  laws  by  which  it 
is  to  be  interpreted. 

4.      HOW    TO    DISTINGUISH   LITERAL     FROM      FIGURA- 
TIVE   LANGUAGE. 

1.  The  literal  meaning  of  words  is  never  to  be  de- 
parted from  without  evident  reason  and  necessity.  To 
interpret  words  on  all  occasions  in  fiofurative  senses, 
because  they  are  sometimes  or  indeed  often  used  so, 
would  be  one  of  the  grossest  abuses  of  languag-e,  and 
the  most  entire  perversion  of  reason.  An  intelligent 
writer  does  not  introduce  figurative  expressions  in  such 
a  way,  as  to  leave  room  to  doubt  whether  they  are 
fiofurative  or  not.  That  a  word  will  admit  of  beincr 
interpreted  in  a  figurative  sense  is  not  a  sufiicient  rea- 
son for  interpreting  it  so.  It  ought  not  to  admit  of  a 
different  interpretation,  without  evident  violence  being 
done  to  the  language,  in  order  that  its  claim  to  be  con- 
sidered figurative  may  be  made  good.  Such  is  always 
the  case  with  figurative  language.  It  cannot  without 
manifest  violence  being  done  to  it,  be  interpreted  liter- 
ally. 


ifc 


16  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

2.  Words  are  to  be  considered  figurative,  when 
there  is  manifest  incongruity  between  the  subject 
spoken  of,  and  the  affirmation  made  respecting  it ;  as 
when  corporeal  and  incorporeal,  animate  and  inani- 
mate, rational  and  irrational,  &c.  are  conjoined.  Thus 
Christ  says  of  himself,  "  I  am  the  true  vine,"  "  the  liv- 
ing bread ;"  here  is  a  conjunction  of  animate  and  in- 
animate. "  Wisdom  crieth  without ;"  crieth  expresses 
the  act  of  a  living  agent  and  is  applied  to  Avisdom, 
which  is  inanimate,  by  a  figure  of  speech  called  per- 
sonification. Anger  burns  or  is  kindled ;  here  is  a 
conjunction  of  anger  an  incorporeal  object,  with  burns, 
which  expresses  the  state  of  a  corporeal  or  material 
object.  Whenever  an  expression  would  be  manifestly 
false  or  absurd,  if  understood  literally,  and  makes  a 
good  sense  if  understood  figuratively,  we  are  to  con- 
sider it  figurative.  Thus  Christ  said  of  the  sacrament- 
al bread,  "  this  is  my  body."  This  declaration,  if  un- 
derstood literally,  would  be  false  and  absurd.  No 
logic  could  make  out,  that  bread  is  identical  with  a  liv- 
ing human  body,  and  such  was  the  body  of  Christ, 
when  he  made  the  declaration  referred  to.  But  if  we 
consider  bread  as  being  a  figurative  representation  of 
the  Redeemer's  body,  the  sense  of  the  passage  is  good, 
agreeing  both  with  the  subject  and  context.  We 
therefore  conclude  that  it  is  figurative;  and  so  of  like 
expressions  generally. 

3.  A  word  is  frequently  known  to  be  used  in  a 
figurative  sense,  by  a  definitive  clause,  expressing  in  a 
literal  sense  the  idea  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  the 
figure.  As  in  the  sentence,  "  We  being  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins,"  6cc.  dead  is  known  to  be  used  in  a 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  17 

figurative  sense,  by  the  phrase  in  trespasses  and  sins, 
which  indicates  literally  the  kind  of  death  intended, 
and  shows  the  word  to  be  used  in  a  figurative  and  not 
in  its  literal  sense. 

4.  When  different  words  and  those  of  different 
significations,  are  applied  to  the  same  subject,  though 
that  subject  is  an  unknown  one,  we  may  justly  infer 
that  some  of  them  at  least  are  to  be  understood  figura- 
tively. Thus  the  change  that  takes  place  in  becom- 
ing a  Christian,  is  called  being  born  again,  being  con- 
verted, renewed  after  the  image  of  God,  &c.  some  of 
which  must  of  course  be  figurative  representations  of 
that  change. 

5.  When  the  same  words  or  those  of  similar  im- 
port are  every  where  in  the  Bible,  used  in  reference  to 
any  particular  subject,  though  that  subject  is  otherwise 
an  unknown  one,  we  may  infer  that  they  are  to  be  in- 
terpreted hterally.  Thus  the  future  punishment  of 
the  wicked  is  represented  by  various  terms  and  forms 
of  expression,  all  of  which  unequivocally  denote  suf- 
fering ;  we  therefore  infer  that  punishment  will  lite- 
rally be  inflicted.  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  at  the  last  day  stands  on  a  foundation 
equally  firm.  It  is  referred  to  in  various  passages  of 
Scripture,  and  by  various  modes  of  expression,  but  all 
indicating  the  same  thing  and  expressing  substantially 
the  same  idea.  Thus  resurrection  of  the  dead,  of  the 
body,  being  quickened  or  made  alive,  are  expressions 
constantly  used,  in  reference  to  an  event  to  take  place 
at  the  end  of  the  world. 

This  rule  is  one  of  very  general  application  and  of 
great  practical  importance  in  relation  to  such  subjects 


18  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

as  do  not  come  within  the  sphere  of  our  observation, 
and  for  a  knowledge  of  which,  we  are  indebted  solely 
to  divine  revelation. 

5.       HOW     TO     ASCERTAIN    THE     LITERAL     MEANING 
OF    WORDS. 

1 .  The  meaning  of  v/ords  is  determined  by  cus- 
tom and  general  usage  as  we  have  already  had  occa- 
sion to  remark.  As  far  as  any  individual  departs  from 
this  usage  in  the  expression  of  his  ideas,  his  communi- 
cation becomes  obscure,  and  his  language  incorrect. 
No  intelligent  writer  intentionally  departs  from  it 
without  what  he  supposes  to  be  good  reason  for  doing 
so,  and  explicitly  pointing  out  how  far  he  does  it. 

The  correct  and  true  meaning  of  words  as  they 
are  generally  understood  by  those  who  use  them,  is 
that  which  every  intelligent  writer  expects  to  be  under- 
stood as  expressing.  This  he  aims  to  express,  and  to 
this,  he  endeavors  to  adhere.  In  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject, the  sacred  writers  are  to  be  placed  at  least  on  an 
equality  with  others.  They  have  not  used  language 
with  less  accuracy  and  propriety  than  intelligent  unin- 
spired writers. 

2.  The  first  and  simplest  means  of  ascertaining  the 
meaning  of  words,  is  by  definition.  In  giving  the  de- 
finition of  a  word  a  man  gives  his  individual  testimony 
in  favor  of  that  meaning,  or  those  meanings,  which 
he  assigns,  being  the  true  meaning  or  meanings  of  the 
words.  Such  testimony  is  to  be  estimated  like  all  oth- 
er testimony,  and  is  more  or  less  valuable,  according 
to  the  character  of  the  witness.  When  a  writer  defines 
his  own  terms,  they  are  of  course  to  be  interpreted  in 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  19 

his  writings  according  to  his  definition  of  them,  unless 
he  manifestly  departs  from  it.  Writers  generally  de- 
fine such  terms  as  they  think  will  not  be  well  under- 
stood by  those  for  whom  their  works  are  designed, 
without  definitions. 

Dictionaries  are  highly  useful  to  the  student  and 
interpreter,  in  exhibiting  the  principal  meanings  of 
words  as  they  were  understood  by  their  respective  au- 
thors. They  ought  to  be  constantly  consulted  as  repo- 
sitories of  valuable  knowledge  on  this  subject. 

3.  The  nature  of  the  subject  treated  of,  affords  very 
essential  service  in  limiting  and  defining  the  meaning 
of  words.  When  words  have  different  meanings,  we 
generally  infer  from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  which  of 
those  meanings  is  to  be  taken  in  any  particular  passage. 
The  facility  with  which  we  do  this  is  truly  remarka- 
ble, and  affords  us  just  occasion  for  wonder  and  admi- 
ration. Notwithstanding  that  most  of  the  words  we 
use  have  different  meanings,  yet  we  discover  almost 
intuitively,  which  of  the  meanings  is  intended  in  any 
particu}a.r  application  of  them.  So  that  language  may 
be  considered  almost  as  definite,  as  if  every  word  had 
its  own  definite  signification  and  no  other.  The  defi- 
niteness  and  precision  of  language,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  indefiniteness  of  meaning  belonging  to  single 
words,  may  well  be  accounted  among  the  wonders  of 
literature. 

4.  Words  are  often  illustrated  and  explained  by 
examples,  where  there  is  no  logical  definition,  and 
where  the  nature  of  the  subject  would  not  be  sufficient- 
ly clear  to  aftbrd  a  clue  to  the  true  meaning.  Exam- 
ples illustrative  of  the  meaning  of  words,  are  common 


20  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

ill  almost  every  kind  of  writing,  and  deserve  the  par- 
ticular attention  of  every  student  and  interpreter.  Thus 
we  learn  the  meaning  of  the  word  prayer  as  much  from 
the  examples  of  the  performance  of  this  duty  recorded 
in  the  Bible,  as  from  any  other  source.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  piety,  faith,  repentance,  and  many  other 
of  the  most  important  terms,  in  which  the  divine  will 
is  treasured  up,  and  by  which  it  is  made  known  to  men. 

5.  A  comparison  of  parallel  passages,  together  with 
a  careful  attention  to  the  context,  is  another  and  effect- 
ual means  of  eliciting  the  true  meaning  of  some  words, 
which  could  not  be  otherwise  ascertained.  Those  pas- 
sages of  the  sacred  Scriptures  are  parallel,  which  ma- 
nifestly relate  to  the  same  subject  and  express  similar 
sentiments.  The  same  sentiment  may  be  expressed  in 
different  terms,  in  two  or  more  passages,  but  more  defi- 
nitely and  perspicuously  in  some  passages  than  in  oth- 
ers. The  same  fact  is  sometimes  related  in  two  or 
more  differs  nt  passages,  and  related  more  fully  in  some 
than  in  others.  A  comparison  of  parallel  passages  is 
one  of  the  most  effectual  means  of  acquiring  an  accu- 
rate and  extensive  knowledge  of  the  precise  and  accu- 
rate meaning  of  many  of  those  words,  by  which  the 
doctrines  and  duties  of  relio;ion  are  tauoht. 

The  parallel  passages  on  prayer  are  those  which 
relate  to  the  subject  of  prayer,  and  explain  and  enforce 
the  duty ;  those  on  the  day  of  final  judgment,  are  those 
which  relate  to  the  subject  of  a  final  judgment,  and 
describe  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  it,  (fcc. 

Care  ought  to  be  taken  to  determine  whether  the 
passages  which  we  examine  as  parallel,  are  truly  so  or 
not.     There  may  be  a  mere  verbal  parallelism,  when 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  21 

the  subjects  treated  of  are  entirely  different.  In  this 
way  multitudes  suffer  themselves  to  be  bewildered  and 
deceived.  By  considering  passao^es  of  Scripture  which 
relate  to  the  final  judgment,  parallel  to  those  which 
relate  to  the  infliction  of  temporal  judgments,  multi- 
tudes have  endeavored  to  explain  away  the  doctrine  of 
a  final  judgment,  to  the  very  great  detriment  of  reli- 
gion. So  by  considering  passages  of  Scripture  which 
relate  to  the  subject  of  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked,  parallel  to  those  which  relate  to  the  infliction 
of  temporal  punishment,  many  have  endeavored  to  ex- 
plain that  doctrine  away.  In  both  the  above  cases 
parallelism  has  been  assumed  when  it  does  not  really 
exist,  and  the  premises  being  incorrect  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  conclusion  should  be  false. 

6.     HOW    TO  ASCERTAIN    THE   FIGURATIVE    MEANING 
OF   WORDS. 

1.  General  usage  in  regard  to  figurative  expres- 
sions, is  the  general  rule,  according  to  which  they  are 
to  be  interpreted.  This  usage  is  remarkably  uniform, 
both  in  sacred  and  profane  writers,  in  regard  to  a  large 
portion  of  figurative  language. 

In  the  sacred  Scriptures  light  is  universally  an  em- 
blem of  prosperity  and  happiness,  and  sometimes  of 
knowledge  and  virtue.  Darkness  represents  misery, 
ignorance,  and  sin.  Fire  has  two  figurative  meanings. 
It  is  a  common  emblem  of  God's  consuming  wrath,  and 
Also  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  purifying  influences.  These 
meanings,  however,  are  always  kept  distinct  in  the  sa- 
cred volume.  The  '•  refiner's  fire,"'  through  which  the 
pious  are  represented  as  passing,  and  the  "  baptism  of 


22  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  fire,"  are  as  distinct  and  differ- 
ent from  "the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  the  place 
where  the  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is  not  quench- 
ed," as  heaven  is  from  hell,  or  as  happiness  is  from 
misery. 

The  meaning  of  the  Scripture  figurative  language 
is  as  determinate  and  precise,  as  that  of  any  other  part 
of  the  sacred  volume  ;  and  is  rendered  so,  by  the  uni- 
formity of  the  sacred  writers  in  using  particular  figura- 
tive expressions  to  denote  and  illustrate  particular  ideas 
and  those  only.  This  uniformity  in  the  use  of  figura- 
tive language  is  founded  in  the  nature  of  things,  and 
is  common  to  all  languages  and  all  writers. 

2.  Where  figurative  expressions  are  of  double  or 
doubtful  meaning,  they  must  be  interpreted  according 
to  the  nature  of  the  subject  treated  of  Where  the  ge- 
neral usage  of  the  sacred  writers  has  given  different 
meanings  to  particular  figurative  expressions,  or  where 
the  figure  is  in  its  nature  indefinite  in  its  meaning,  the 
subject  must  necessarily  decide  which  of  the  possible 
meanino's  is  the  one  intended.  Where  figurative  ex- 
pressions  have  different  established  meanings,  they 
ought  to  be  carefully  borne  in  mind.  It  is  a  very  great 
fault,  as  well  as  folly,  to  urge  a  particular  meaning  on 
a  metaphor  in  all  places,  because  it  sometimes  has  that 
meaning;  or  because  considered  without  any  relation 
to  the  subject  in  hand,  it  may  have  it ;  and  yet  cases  of 
this  error  being  fallen  into,  are  by  no  means  rare. 

3.  The  context  may  be  consulted  with  advantage 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  meaning  of  figu- 
rative language,  just  as  it  is,  in  regard  to  the  literal 
meaning  of  words.    In  like  manner  does  a  comparison 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  23 

of  parallel  passasfes  throw  light  on  many  figurative 
expressions,  which  without  this  illustration  would  ap- 
pear dark  and  doubtful. 

4.  In  the  explanation  of  figurative  language,  sub- 
stitute literal  expressions  for  fis^urative,  expressing 
what  is  supposed  to  be  the  true  sense  of  the  passage. 
Wherever  a  figurative  expression  is  rightly  understood, 
it  is  easy  to  express  the  sense  of  it  in  plain  language ; 
where  we  find  ourselves  unable  to  reduce  figurative 
to  plain  language,  we  may  justly  conclude  that 
we  do  not  understand  it.  The  endeavor  to  substitute 
plain  language,  is  useful  in  leading  us  to  investi- 
gate with  more  precision  and  accuracy  than  we 
should  be  likely  otherwise  to  do,  the  expressions  we 
endeavor  thus  to  change  and  simplify.  Examples  of 
figurative  language  changed  into  plain.  "I  am  the 
true  vine ;  ye  are  the  branches."'  That  is ;  I  am  like 
the  true  vine,  and  ye  are  hke  branches  in  relation 
to  me. 

'•  This  is  their  condemnation,  that  light  has  come 
into  the  world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather  than 
light  because  their  deeds  were  evil."  Here  are  several 
figures  blended  together.  Light  is  a  metaphor  used  to 
denote  truth  or  knowledge,  which  is  personified  and 
represented  as  coming  into  the  world  like  a  person. 
Darkness  is  also  a  metaphor,  and  signifies  ignorance 
or  error.  The  literal  expressions  being  substituted  for 
the  figurative,  the  passage  would  read  thus  :  This  is 
their  condemnation  that  truth  thus  has  come  into  the 
world,  and  men  loved  error  rather  than  truth,  because 
their  deeds  were  evil.  There  is  still  an  elipsis  to  be 
supplied  in  order  to  make  the  passage  literal,  as  the 


24  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

word  condemnation  is  used  by  metonym  y  fcrthecause 
of  condemnation.  With  the  aUeration  it  would  read ; 
This  is  the  cause  of  their  condemnation,  &.c. 

If  on  making  a  substitution  of  plain  for  figura- 
tive language,  the  expression  does  not  harmonize 
with  the  context,  and  with  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
it  may  be  inferred  that  the  substitution  is  incorrect. 
One  of  the  advantages  of  substituting  plain  for  figu- 
rative language,  is  to  facilitate  the  application  of  the 
before  mentioned  rules  of  interpretation. 

7.     HOW    TO    ASCERTAIN    THE    MEANING    OP    ALLE- 
GORIES. 

1.  First,  inquire  into  the  design  of  the  allegory, 
the  purpose  for  which  it  was  introduced.  This  will 
generally  be  explained  in  the  context,  and  when  no 
particular  declaration  of  it  is  made,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  circumstances  and  connection  in  which  it 
is  introduced.  To  disregard  the  evident  or  de- 
clared design  with  which  an  allegory  is  introduced, 
is  as  great  an  error  in  interpretation,  as  it  is  to  disre- 
gard entirely  the  proposition  which  an  argument  is 
intended  to  prove  in  the  consideration  of  that  argu- 
ment. An  allegory  is  generally,  only  a  part  of  the 
discourse  in  which  it  occurs,  and  is  to  be  investigated  in 
its  connection  with  the  other  parts  of  that  discourse, 
and  not  independently  of  them.  Having  ascertained 
the  design  of  an  allegory  as  far  as  it  can  be  determined 
from  the  context ;  next  proceed  to  examine  the  alle- 
gory itself 

2.  Let  the  different  parts  of  an  allegory  be  explain- 
ed in  accordance  to  the  main  design.     Most  allegories 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  ^O 

are  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  some 
particular  point,  and  are  to  be  considered  as  constitii-' 
ting  one  whole  illustration,  not  necessarily  a  collection 
of  illustrations.  Thus  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son 
was  introduced  by  our  Saviour  into  one  of  his  dis- 
courses, to  illustrate  the  benignity  and  kindness  with 
which  God  receives  the  repenting  sinner.  The  para- 
ble of  the  good  Samaritan  was  introduced  to  illustrate 
and  enforce  the  duty  of  universal  beneficence.  The 
different  parts  of  these  parables  therefore,  are  to  be 
interpreted  in  subserviency  to  their  main  design. 

3.  As  no  two  objects  resemble  each  other  in  every 
particular,  so  we  are  not  to  expect  the  subject  of  an 
allegory  to  bear  a  perfect  resemblance  to  the  subject 
intended  to  be  illustrated  by  it  in  every  particular  that 
may  be  mentioned  respecting  it.  The  subject  of  an 
allegory,  is  always  supposed  to  have  some  resem- 
blance to  the  subject  which  it  is  intended  to  illustrate. 
This  resemblance,  like  that  in  every  other  case,  con- 
sists in  some  properties  or  circumstances,  being  the 
same  in  both. 

It  is  a  very  common  fault  in  the  interpretation  of 
allegories,  to  seek  for  too  many  points  of  resemblance, 
and  to  press  the  analogy  on  which  the  allegory  is 
founded  too  far. 

4.  The  application  of  allegories  to  purposes  of 
instruction  and  argument,  has  been  practised  exten- 
sively, both  in  sacred  and  profane  writings.  Many  of 
the  inimitable  discourses  of  our  Saviour,  were  made 
up  mostly  of  allegorical  illustrations.  The  allegories 
of  the  Bible  are  of  unparalleled  beauty  and  excellence, 

so  that  the  frequency  with  which  they  are  introduced 

3 


26  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

in  the  sacred  volume,  contributes  not  a  little  to  en- 
hance its  value,  both  as  a  hterary  production,  and  as 
a  manual  of  instruction. 

Allegorical  discourses  are  peculiarly  adapted  to 
encounter  prejudice  and  opposition,  and  they  have 
very  frequently  been  made  use  of  for  this  purpose  in 
the  sacred  Scriptures  and  in  other  writings. 

5.  The  foregoing  rules  for  the  interpretation  of 
allegories  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  example. 
Luke  18:  2—8. 

"  There  was  in  a  city,  a  judge  which  feared  not 
God,  neither  regarded  man.  And  there  was  a  widow 
in  that  city,  and  she  came  unto  him,  saying,  avenge 
me  of  my  adversary.  And  he  would  not  for  a  while, 
but  afterward  he  said  within  himself,  though  I  fear  not 
God,  nor  regard  man,  yet  because  this  widow  troubleth 
me,  I  will  avenge  her,  lest  by  her  continual  coming 
she  weary  me.  And  the  Lord  said,  hear  what  the 
unjust  judge  saith.  And  shall  not  God  avenge  his 
own  elect  that  cry  day  and  night  to  him,  though  he 
bear  long  with  him  ?  I  tell  you  he  will  avenge  them 
speedily." 

1.  As  to  the  design  of  this  parable,  it  is  exphcitly 
declared  in  the  context ;  "  That  men  ought  always  to 
pray,  and  not  to  faint." 

2.  The  poor  widow  asking  redress  of  a  judge,  repre- 
sents the  case  of  a  sinner  asking  favors  of  God.  Both 
are  alike  helpless  and  dependent.  The  success  of  the 
widow's  importunity  is  an  encouragement  to  sinners 
to  be  importunate  with  God. 

The  fact  that  the  judge  was  unjust,  renders  the 
case  a  peculiarly  strong  and  encouraging  one ;  if  an 


OF    INTERPRETATION. 


27 


unjust  judge  would  yield  to  the  importunity  of  a 
feeble,  helpless  widow,  whom  he  cared  nothing  about, 
how  much  more  would  a  just  God,  who  cherishes 
a  tender  concern  for  his  children,  listen  to  their  impor- 
tunate cries  and  grant  their  reasonable  requests! 

The  rules  that  have  already  been  given  for  deter- 
mining the  meaning  of  words  must  of  course  settle 
most  questions  respecting  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 
The  doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion  are  revealed 
to  us  by  the  use  of  terms,  which  need  only  to 
be  explained  correctly,  in  order  that  the  doctrines 
should  be  correctly  apprehended.  But  to  obtain  still 
farther  aid,  we  may  apply  where  the  case  admits  of  it 
the  following  rules. 

8.       DOCTRINAL      INTERPRETATION, HISTORICAL. 

1.  When  a  doctrine  or  fact  is  clearly  stated  in  the 
sacred  Scriptures  and  indubitably  taught,  other  pas- 
sages of  ambiguous  or  doubtful  meaning,  relating  to 
the  same  subject  are  always  to  be  explained  in  accord- 
ance with  that  doctrine  or  fact.  The  propriety  and 
necessity  of  this  rule  arise  from  the  fact,  that  we  are 
never  particular  to  avoid  ambiguous  expressions,  and 
those  considered  by  themselves  of  doubtful  meaning,  in 
relation  to  a  subject  that  has  been  fully  explained,  and 
may  be  presumed  to  be  understood.  What  is  known 
in  relation  to  such  a  subject  is  supposed  to  afford 
means  of  ascertaining  with  certainty  and  precision 
which  of  the  meanings  is  to  be  taken  in  cases  of  am- 
biguity, and  what  is  the  true  meaning  in  cases  of  ob- 
scurity. For  example,  the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of 
faith  in  Christ  during  the  present  hfe,  in  order  to  the 


28  THE  RULES  OR  LAWS 

attainment  of  salvation,  is  clearly  stated  and  definitely 
and  indubitably  taught  in  the  New  Testament.  "  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  He  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  "  There  remaineth 
a  rest  to  the  people  of  God.  Let  us  labor  therefore 
to  enter  into  that  rest,  lest  any  man  fall  after  the  same 
example  of  unbelief  f  that  is,  after  the  example  of  the 
rebellious  Jews,  whose  unbelief  was  the  cause  of  their 
being  cut  off  in  the  wilderness  and  not  being  permitted 
to  enter  the  land  of  Canaan.  So  now  through  unbe- 
lief men  become  liable  to  be  cut  off  in  their  sins  and 
lose  the  enjoyment  of  heaven.  Again  we  are  taught^ 
that  "  Christ  died  for  all  men,  especially  for  them  that 
believe ;"  that  he  "  tasted  death  for  every  man,"  &c. 
These  passages  taken  by  themselves  are  ambiguous, 
or  rather  indefinite,  and  may  be  understood  as  teaching 
that  Christ  died  absolutely  to  save  all  men  without 
regard  to  character  or  conduct ;  or  that  he  died  to 
make  it  possible  for  all  men  to  be  saved,  if  they  would 
accept  salvation,  on  such  reasonable  conditions  as  he 
might  see  fit  to  propose.  The  doctrine  of  the  neces- 
sity of  faith  to  the  attainment  of  salvation,  which  is 
clearly  of  scriptural  authority,  shows  the  latter  to  be 
the  true  meaning  and  the  former  to  be  entirely  inad- 
missible. This  rule  is  to  be  used  cautiously,  and  yet  it 
is  one  of  very  general  application.  The  doctrine  or 
fact  which  is  made  a  rule  for  the  interpretation  of  am- 
biguous and  obscure  passages  and  such  as  are  indefi- 
nite, ought  to  be  investigated  with  great  accuracy  and 
care ;  otherwise  we  shall  be  liable  to  great  mistakes  in 
making  our  own  unfounded  conjectures  instead  of 
God's  undoubted  truth,  both  an  article  of  faith  and  a 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  29 

rule  of  interpretation.  A  single  mistake  in  making  an 
erroneous  doctrine  a  rule  of  interpretation,  may  lead 
to  the  most  pernicious  perversion  of  a  multitude  of 
Scripture  texts. 

2.  Authentic  history  furnishes  another  source  of 
information  in  relation  to  the  interpretation  of  the  sa- 
cred writinofs.  which  is  in  some  cases  at  least  of  very 
essential  service.  Many  subjects  which  are  imperfectly 
explained  in  the  sacred  vokime  were  more  fully  ex- 
pounded in  the  oral  instructions  of  the  apostles  and 
other  inspired  teachers  ;  and  some  forms  of  expression 
which  are  ambiguous  and  obscure  now,  were  per- 
fectly plain,  when  the  sacred  writings  were  first  com- 
mitted to  the  church.  In  many  cases  therefore,  it  is  a 
matter  of  considerable  importance  to  ascertain  what 
were  the  usages  of  the  apostles,  and  of  the  churches  in 
apostolic  times :  and  how  particular  passages  were  un- 
derstood by  the  primitive  followers  of  Christ. 

So  far  as  any  doctrine  can  be  proved  by  historical 
evidence,  to  be  of  apostolical  origin ;  that  historical 
truth  may  be  relied  on  as  a  safe  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion. For  example:  We  learn  from  authentic  history 
that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  observed  by  the  pri- 
mitive Christians  as  a  sabbath; — that  the  churches 
planted  in  difierent  countries,  and  by  different  apostles 
concurred  in  this  observance.  As  it  is  utterly  impro- 
bable that  they  should  have  concurred  in  such  an  ob- 
servance, unless  it  had  been  authorized  by  apostolic 
authority,  we  refer  the  institution  of  the  Christian  sab- 
bath to  the  apostles,  on  the  ground  of  the  historical 
evidence  in  its  favor.     The   observance  of  the   first 

3* 


30  THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 

day  of  the  week  must  have  been  an  apostohcal  usage, 
or  it  could  not  have  been  universal  in  the  primitiv^e 
church.  This  knowledge  of  the  usage  of  the  apostles, 
throws  additional  light  on  some  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  which  to  many  at  least  would  be  other- 
wise obscure.  Finding  the  notices  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week  interspersed  through  the  New  Testament,  to 
be  in  perfect  accordance  with  this  historical  fact,  and 
such  as  cannot  well  be  reconciled  with  any  other  hy- 
pothesis, we  conclude  with  as  much  certainty  in  favor 
of  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the  Christian  sab- 
bath, as  we  do  in  favor  of  any  other  part  of  the  Christ- 
ian system. 

9.    ENTIRE     DISCOURSES    AND    PARAGRAPHS. 

The  different  parts  of  an  entire  discourse  or  para- 
graph, ought  to  be  studied  in  their  proper  connections 
and  dependences. 

The  limb  of  a  discourse  like  that  of  the  human 
frame  when  amputated  from  the  body  to  which  it  be- 
longs, may  become  an  incumbrance  in  the  pursuit 
of  knowledge,  rather  than  a  means  of  hastening  and 
facilitating  our  progress. 

In  the  study  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  consider  first 
the  nature  of  the  composition,  whether  it  consists  of 
prose  or  poetry :  whether  it  is  historical  or  doctrinal ; 
&c.  It  would  be  absurd  to  interpret  prose  and  poetry, 
historical  and  doctrinal  composition  by  the  same  rules 
without  any  regard  to  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  com- 
position. Poetry  is  to  be  interpreted  as  poetry,  prose 
as  prose,  preceptive  writing  is  to  be  interpreted  as  being 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  31 

preceptive,  and  history  as  history.  The  same  general 
rules  of  interpretation  apply  to  sacred  history  as  to 
profane,  and  to  sacred  poetry  as  to  profane,  &c. 

Having  determined  what  kind  of  composition  any 
particular  portion  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  is,  you  are 
investigating: ;  next  determine  the  natural  divisions. 
Every  discourse,  whether  historical  or  doctrinal,  every 
poem  and  every  prophecy,  has  a  beginning,  middle, 
and  end.  These  ought  to  be  distinctly  noted.  The 
beofinnino:  of  a  discourse  ousfht  to  be  connected  with 
the  middle  and  end  ;  and  the  middle  and  end  ought 
to  be  connected  with  the  beo^inning".  The  force  and 
beauty  of  many  passages  is  entirely  lost  to  multitudes 
from  a  neglect  of  this  direction.  It  is  not  to  be  taken 
for  granted,  that  the  beginning  of  a  chapter  is  in  all 
cases  the  beginning  of  a  discourse,  or  even  of  a  para- 
graph. This  is  in  many  instances  far  from  being  the 
case.  The  Bible  ought  to  be  studied  without  reference 
to  the  division  into  chapters.  The  natural  divisions  are 
to  be  determined  just  as  we  would  determine  them,  if 
there  were  no  artificial  divisions  at  all.  Divisions  of 
chapters  frequently  occur,  where  there  is  no  natural 
division,  and  natural  divisions  still  more  frequently  oc- 
cur where  there  is  no  division  into  chapters  in  the  com- 
mon Bible. 

The  present  division  of  the  r?ible  into  chapters  was 
made  b>  cardinal  Hugo,  a  Dominican,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1240.  The  further  pnd  more  minute  divi- 
sion of  the  Bible  into  verses,  was  introduced  in  1445, 
by  a  distinguished  Jewish  Rabbi,  Mordecai  Nathan. 
The  object  of  these  divisions  being  introduced,  was  to 
lav  the  foundation  for  a  concordance,  and  to  facilitate 


32  THE    RULES    OR   LAWS 

references  to  different  parts  of  the  Bible.  That  object 
they  have  subserved  admirably  well;  but  at  the  same 
time,  they  have  been  highly  injurious  by  disjointing 
parts  of  discourses  which  are  intimately  connected, 
and  separating  passages  into  different  chapters  which 
cannot  be  correctly  understood  without  being  studied 
in  connection  with  each  other. 

10.    THE    INTERPRETATION     OF     THE    BIBLE    CON- 
SIDERED   AS    A    TRANSLATION. 

The  rules  that  have  been  given  for  interpreting  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  apply  equally  to  any  language. 
They  apply  to  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  to 
every  translation.  But  the  best  translations  are  imper- 
fect. And  the  scholar  that  does  not  understand  the  ori- 
ginal languages,  needs  to  be  informed  how  he  may 
ascertain  the  correctness  of  the  translations  he  uses,  in 
any  particular  passage.  For  if  the  translation  of  any 
particular  passage  is  incorrect,  the  meaning  educed 
from  it  by  the  best  rules  of  interpretation,  must  be 
wrong.  The  difficulties  in  which  this  subject  is  invol- 
ved, have,  no  doubt,  discouraged  some  from  even 
endeavoring  to  settle  their  belief  in  regard  to  impor- 
tant doctrines  of  the  Bible.  They  have  furnished  a 
plausible  excuse  for  skepticism  and  error  to  such  as 
were  quite  willing  to  remain  in  the  dark  on  religious 
subjects. 

But  honest  inquirers  need  not  despair.  Truth 
may  be  ascertained  in  regard  to  this  subject,  as  far  as 
is  necessary  for  the  important  purposes  of  faith  and 
practice. 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  33 

Ilules  by  ichich  those  unacquainted  with  the  original 
languages  of  the  Scriptures^  may  decide  on  the 
correctness  of  the  translation. 

1.  The  general  agreement  of  commentators  in 
regard  to  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  any  par- 
ticular passage,  maybe  safely  rehed  on  as  indicating 
the  truth.  Because  such  an  agreement  cannot  exist, 
except  wliere  the  case  is  one  of  undoubted  certainty. 
If  several  different  commentators,  skilled  in  the  origin- 
al languages,  decide  that  a  passage  is  correctly  trans- 
lated, we  have  the  strongest  reason  to  confide  in  their 
decision,  especially  if  there  is  no  counter  testimony. 
This  rule  lays  a  foundation  for  confidence  in  regard 
to  the  great  body  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Commen- 
tators of  every  respectable  denomination  of  Christians, 
and  many  persons  who  have  joined  no  particular  sect, 
have  generally  acquiesced  in  the  decision,  that  our 
common  English  Bible  is  correct ;  and  that,  considered 
as  a  whole,  it  is  a  faithful  representation  of  the  sense  of 
the  original.  This  agreement  is  general  and  decisive  ; 
cases  of  dissent  from  it  are  partial  and  particular. 

2.  In  all  cases  where  the  correctness  of  the  English 
translation  is  called  in  question,  we  are  to  decide 
according  to  evidence,  and  not  arbitrarily,  as  is  too 
often  done.  Evidence  is  sometimes  found  in  the 
context,  either  for  or  against  the  common  translation. 
Especially  when  a  new  translation  is  recommended, 
ought  its  agreement  or  disagreement  with  the  context 
to  be  carefully  observed.  A  translation  which  does 
not  agree  with  the  context  must  be  wrong.  This 
disagreement  is  decisive  evidence  against  it. 


34 


THE    RULES    OR    LAWS 


3.  A  translation  which  does  not  make  sense  must 
of  course  be  wrong.  To  maintain  the  contrary,  is  a 
high  impeachment  of  the  sacred  vokime.  All  that 
scripture  which  has  been  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
makes  a  good  and  consistent  sense  in  the  original,  and 
must,  in  all  cases  when  correctly  translated,  be  of  the 
same  character. 

4.  When  a  particular  translation  makes  a  good 
and  consistent  sense,  and  does  not  disagree  Avith  the 
context,  and  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  matter  of  dispute 
among  biblical  scholars  and  commentators; — first  take 
the  opinions  of  the  critics  and  commentators  in  ques- 
tion, and  consider  on  which  side  there  appears  to  be  the 
most  learning,  candor,  integrity,  and  piety.  That 
side  on  which  there  is  a  preponderance  of  these  qualifi- 
cations, is  probably  right.  Secondly ;  examine  the 
reasons  given  in  favor  of  the  translation  in  question, 
or  against  it.  If  these  reasons  are  substantial,  we  may 
safely  yield  our  assent ;  otherwise  not. 

A  commentator  who  dissents  from  the  common 
translation  of  any  particular  passage,  and  proposes  a 
different  one,  is  bound  to  give  substantial  reasons  for 
that  dissent,  and  for  the  translation  he  recommends. 
These  reasons  may,  in  most  cases,  be  apprehended 
with  perfect  clearness  by  such  as  are  unacquainted  with 
the  original  languages,  and  will  afibrd  very  important 
aid  in  resolving  difficulties  of  this  kind. 

Whoever  attends  to  these  rules  will  seldom  be 
involved  in  very  great  perplexity  as  to  any  thing 
effecting  materially  the  fundamental  articles  of  the 
Christian  faith.  In  relation  to  those  numerous  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  in  which,  these  articles  are  taught 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  35 

either  directly  or  by  implication,  there  is  a  general 
and  happy  agreement  among  the  great  body  of  sound 
biblical  scholars,  and  especially  among  that  portion  of 
them  that  are  eminent  for  piety  as  well  as  learning. 

5.  If  any  man  finds  himself  involved  in  doubt  as 
to  the  translation  of  any  particular  passage  or  passa- 
2:es  of  Scripture,  and  is  unable  to  obtain  the  works  of 
biblical  commentators  and  expositors  as  directed  above ; 
let  him  go  to  a  well  instructed  clergyman  of  any  respec- 
table branch  of  the  Christian  church,  and  ask  instruc- 
tion in  the  case,  and  he  will  seldom  fail  of  obtaining  it. 
Knowledge  is  to  be  had,  if  men  will  take  the 
trouble  to  apply  for  it ;  and  surely  none  can  desire  it 
on  easier  terms. 

I  do  not  propose  that  any  man's  ipse  dixit  should 
be  taken  as  a  rule  of  faith  or  of  interpretation.  To 
pursue  such  a  course  would  be  to  perpetuate  errone- 
ous interpretations  indefinitely.  But  I  do  recommend 
that  those  who  have  not  the  means  of  extensive  and 
accurate  information  on  this  subject,  should  allow 
those  who  have,  to  direct  their  minds  to  principles  and 
facts  which  may  lead  them  to  truth,  and  protect  them 
from  error  in  all  matters  of  vital  importance.  Error 
is  the  child  of  ignorance,  and  ignorance  in  most  cases 
springs  from  a  voluntary  and  criminal  neglect  of  the 
means  of  improvement  and  information.  God  has 
made  it  our  duty  to  know  the  truth,  and  has  amply 
furnished  us  with  the  means  of  gaining  this  knowl- 
edge. iNo  man  need  be  a  skeptic,  none  need  be  an 
unbeliever,  if  he  will  consent  to  use  honestly,  and 
diligently,  and  prayerfully,  those  means  of  instruction, 
which  God  has  placed  within  his  reach,  and  urged 
upon  his  acceptance. 


SECTION    III. 

THE  RATIONALISTIC  MODE  OF  INTERPRE- 
TATION. 

1.  Many  persons  talk  a  great  deal  of  the  Scriptures 
being  according  to  reason ;  and  take  considerable 
liberties  in  the  interpretation  of  them,  for  the  purpose 
of  making  them  speak  such  language  as  they  think  is 
reasonable. 

The  mode  of  interpretation  adopted  by  such,  is  in 
some  respects  peculiar.  The  fundamental  principle 
of  it  is^  that  the  sacred  Scriptures  are  accordant  to 
reason. 

This  principle  is  not  pretended  to  be  applicable  to 
men's  productions,  because  men  are  liable  to  hold  sen- 
timents and  make  statements  that  are  untrue  and  un- 
reasonable ;  and  therefore  the  fact  that  a  particular  doc- 
trine is  unreasonable,  is  no  proof  that  men  have  not 
held,  and  inculcated  it  in  their  writings. 

2.  Let  us  investigate  this  rule.  The  sacred  Scrip- 
tures must  be  accordant  to  reason  ?  What  is  reason  ? 
If  reason  is  a  rule  of  interpretation  it  ought  to  be  well 
understood.  The  word  reason  has  two  principal 
meanings.  1.  It  designates  the  foundation  or  cause  of 
an  opinion  or  conclusion — as  we  think  thus  and  so,  for 


THE  RATIONALISTIC  MODE,  ETC.  37 

this  and  that  reason.  Every  correct  opinion  is  based 
on  some  sufficient  reason,  which  is  the  cause  of 
our  holding-  it. 

We  beUeve  that  Cohuiibus  discovered  America  ; 
and  the  reason  for  this  behef,  or  the  foundation  on 
which  it  rests,  is  the  fact  that  the  discovery  of  it,  is 
universally  attributed  to  him  ;  especially  by  those  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  of  the  times  in  which  he 
lived. 

To  believe  without  reasons  is  denominated  unrea- 
sonable ;  and  is  well  entitled  to  this  denomination. 

Those  sentiments,  therefore,  are  reasonable  for 
which  reasons  of  sufficient  weight  can  be  assigned ; 
in  this  connection,  reasons  are  nearly  the  same  as  evi- 
dences. 2.  The  word  reason  also  designates  that 
power  of  the  mind,  by  which  we  distinguish  truth 
from  error,  and  gain  knowledge  by  comparison  and 
inference.  We  employ  this  faculty  in  all  our  investiga- 
tions, whether  of  the  Bible  and  Bible-truth,  or  of  any 
other  subject.  No  matt^  what  system  of  interpreta- 
tion we  adopt,  reason  is  the  faculty,  in  the  exercise  of 
which  we  apply  the  rules  of  that  system  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  language. 

The  true  sense  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  is  that 
sense,  which,  in  the  right  and  intelligent  use  of  reason 
is  educed  from  them.  This,  however,  is  by  no  means 
making  reason  a  rule  of  interpretation  ;  it  is  only 
making  it  an  instrument,  by  which  the  acknowledged 
rules  of  the  art  are  applied. 

3.  From  a  consideration  of  the  definitions  of 
reason  here  given,  which  will  be  found  to  be  correct, 
and  in  conformity  with  the  best  authorities,  it  appears 

4 


38  THE    RATIONALISTIC    MODE 

highly  improper  to  make  reason  a  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion. The  fact,  that  any  thing  is  asserted  in  the  Bible, 
without  any  collateral  evidence,  is  itself  a  reason  for 
our  belief,  and  one  that  amply  justifies  the  highest  con- 
fidence man  can  repose  in  any  assertion. 

This  subject  may  be  farther  and  more  fully  illus- 
trated by  the  following  propositions. 

1.  Knowledge  is  a  safe  rule  of  interpretation,  and 
one  of  universal  application.  Any  interpretation  of 
Scripture  which  gives  a  meaning  contradictory  to  our 
absolute  knowledge  must  be  wrong.  Though  in  other 
respects,  the  meaning  in  question  might  appear  to  be 
the  true  one,  yet  the  fact  that  it  contradicts  our  certain 
knowledge  proves  it  to  be  false.  The  reason  of  this 
rule  is  obvious.  Men  are  never  expected  to  speak  and 
write  with  as  much  precision  upon  subjects  well  un- 
derstood, as  upon  those  which  are  obscure.  In  refer- 
ence to  such  subjects  we  use  words  in  figurative  and 
uncommon  senses,  as  best  suits  our  convenience,  and 
expect  them  to  be  interpreted  as  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
ject rtiay  require, — neither  are  we  disappointed  in  our 
expectations. 

In  reference  to  subjects  which  are  difficult,  or  such 
as  are  not  generally  understood,  we  find  it  necessary 
to  use  words  with  more  precision  and  accuracy,  in  or- 
der to  make  our  communications  intelligible.  This 
distinction,  in  regard  to  the  loose  and  accurate  use  of 
words,  obtains  in  all  correct  writers,  sacred  and  pro- 
fane, and  ought  to  be  more  generally  known  and  re- 
garded than  it  is.  Christ  is  called  a  son  of  David, 
meaning  as  every  one  knows,  a  descendant  of  that 
prince ;  a  vine,  that  is,  metaphorically  like  a  vine  ;  a 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  39 

corner  stone,  like  a  corner  stone  in  relation  to  the 
church ; — a  rock  of  offence,  that  is,  a  cause  of  offence 
to  the  imbeheving  and  disobedient ;  all  which  are  per- 
fectly intelligible,  because  the  subject  to  which  they 
relate  is  too  well  understood,  to  allow  of  mistake  in 
regard  to  their  meaning. 

2.  As  every  part  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  is  equally 
true,  those  passages  which  contain  apparent  contra- 
dictions must  be  so  explained,  as  to  liarmonize  with 
each  other.  Apparent  contradictions  are  often  far 
from  beino^  real  ones.  The  most  rash  and  superficial 
students  of  the  inspired  volume,  are  those  who  find 
the  most  difficulties  of  this  kind.  Patient  investigation 
of  the  meaning  of  the  words,  of  the  context  and  sub- 
ject treated  of,  will  generally  demonstrate  the  apparent 
contradictions  of  the  Bible  to  be  perfectly  harmonious, 
and  in  perfect  agreement  with  each  other. 

3.  Preconceived  opinion  which  does  not  amount 
to  knowledge,  cannot  with  propriety  be  made  a  rule 
of  interpretation.  The  natural  world  presents  many 
objects  and  the  course  of  divine  providence  unfolds 
many  events  which  we  did  not  expect  to  find,  and  which 
when  observed  awaken  our  wonder  and  surprise.  It  is 
but  reasonable  therefore  to  expect  in  the  economy  of 
grace,  and  in  the  moral  and  religious  system  of  the  uni- 
verse, many  things  exceedingly  strange  to  us,  and  en- 
tirely different  from  what  we  should  have  thouo;ht  best 
to  have.  The  Bible  explains  the  moral  and  religious 
system  of  the  world.  The  design  of  it  is  to  teach 
what  we  could  not  learn  from  any  other  of  the  sources 
of  knowledge  in  relation  to  the  subject  in  question. 


40  THE    RATIONALISTIC    MODE 

The  fact  therefore,  that  some  of  the  representations 
of  the  Bible,  are  at  variance  with  our  preconceived 
opinions,  and  different  from  what  we  should  think  best, 
is  no  objection  at  all  to  the  correctness  and  truth  of  them, 
but  furnishes  a  substantial  argument  in  favor  of  the 
fidelity  and  correctness  of  the  inspired  writers.  This 
rule  is  directly  opposed  to  the  fundamental  one  of  the 
rationalistic  mode  of  interpretation.  Those  who  talk 
so  much  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  being  accordant  to 
reason,  do  not  mean  simply  that  they  must  be  accord- 
ant to  certain  knowledge  and  known  truths.  For  re- 
specting that,  there  is  no  dispute  and  cannot  be.  But 
they  mean,  that  the  sacred  Scriptures  must  be  accord- 
ant to  those  opinions,  which  do  not  come  under  the 
denomination  of  known  truths,  but  which  are  readily 
acquiesced  in  as  being  probable,  without  any  decisive 
evidence  in  their  favor.  But  happily  for  the  cause  of 
truth  and'pibty,  though  unfortunately  for  the  honor  of 
this  system  of  interpretation,  in  all  cases  where  our 
knowledge  of  the  subject  under  consideration,  is  not 
sufficiently  accurate  and  extensive  to  be  a  safe  guide 
to  interpretation,  words  are  used  in  their  most  com- 
mon and  usual  significations.  This  fact  supersedes 
the  necessity  of  any  other  rule  of  interpretation  than 
the  usual  ones,  for  ascertaining  the  meaning  of  words. 
When  men  are  treating  of  subjects  not  well  or  gene- 
rally understood,  they  never  use  words  in  uncom- 
mon significations  without  giving  the  clearest  intima- 
tion of  the  fact,  and  showing  precisely  what  those  sig- 
nifications are,  unless  they  mean  to  bewilder  and  de- 
ceive their  readers. 


OF    INTERPRETATION.  41 

In  relation  to  such  subjects,  they  are  compelled 
to  use  words  with  precision,  and  in  their  most 
usual  meanings,  in  order  to  make  their  commu- 
nications intelligible.  In  exact  accordance  to  this 
principle  as  well  as  the  other  principles  of  language, 
the  divinely  inspired  writings  were  composed.  To 
assert  the  contrary  amounts  to  nothing  less  than  an 
impeachment  of  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  and 
is  unsupported  by  the  least  substantial  evidence.  Be- 
sides, so  far  as  reference  is  had  to  the  opinions  of  men 
in  the  interpretation  of  language,  that  reference  must 
of  course  be  to  the  opinions  of  contemporaries  and 
countrymen,  and  not  to  those  of  later  times  and  of 
other  lands.  Hence  the  necessity  of  every  interpreter 
of  the  Bible  acquainting  himself  as  far  as  possible  with 
the  history  of  opinions  in  the  times  when  the  different 
parts  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  were  written. 

The  opinions  of  the  Jews  and  heathen  in  relation 
to  the  state  of  the  wicked  after  death,  will  serve  as  an 
illustration  of  this  subject.  In  the  times  of  our  Sa- 
viour and  the  apostles,  two  of  the  principal  sects  of  the 
Jews,  all  who  believed  in  a  future  state,  believed  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  after 
death.  The  same  doctrine  was  held  by  the  most 
popular  of  the  heathen  philosophers  and  was  inculca- 
ted on  the  people  generally.  We  are  therefore  to  con- 
sider the  instructions  of  the  New  Testament  as  ad- 
dressed to  persQns  holding  this  sentiment,  and  to  inter- 
pret them  accordingly. 

If  believers  in  the  doctrine  of  the  future  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  would  not  naturally  interpret 
the  instructions  of  the  New  Testament  as  authorizing 
4* 


43  THE  RATIONALISTIC  MODE,  ETC. 

a  belief  in  that  sentiment  and  inculcating  it,  we  are 
not  to  understand  them  as  doing  so.  But  if  they 
v/ould  naturally,  and  necessarily  put  this  construc- 
tion on  the  communications  relating  to  this  sub- 
ject in  the  New  Testament,  we  must  acknowledge  it 
to  be  correct.  For  if  Christ  or  the  apostles  had  wished 
to  discountenance  the  prevailing  sentiment  of  the 
times  in  relation  to  the  subject  in  question,  they  would 
doubtless  have  done  it,  in  terms  too  unequivocal  to  be 
mistaken  by  any  candid  hearer  or  reader.  And  the 
fact  that  they  have  not  discountenanced  it,  but  have 
interspersed  their  instructions  with  expressions  highly 
favorable  to  the  sentiment  in  question,  and  have  in 
many  instances  positively  asserted  that  sentiment,  if 
language  may  be  allowed  to  have  the  same  force  in 
their  mouths  that  it  has  in  the  mouths  of  others,  is 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  strongest  kind  in  favor  of 
the  doctrine. 

From  the  foregoing  remarks  the  legitimate  con- 
elusion  is,  that  the  Rationalistic  mode  of  interpretation 
is  entirely  incorrect,  being  based  upon  principles  that 
are  entirely  false.  Consequently  the  application  of  it 
to  explain  the  Holy  Scriptures,  is  alike  impious  and 
delusive.  It  is  impious,  inasmuch  as  it  implies  the 
setting  up  of  the  fabric  of  human  opinions  against 
God's  eternal  truth,  and  in  the  place  of  it.  It  is  delu- 
sive, inasmuch  as  it  erects  an  impregnable  wall  of 
defence  around  the  erroneous  opinions  and  baseless 
conjectures  of  men,  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining 
them  in  possession  of  the  stolen  honors  of  truth. 


SECTION    IV. 

THE  ALLEGORICAL  MODE  OF  INTERPRET A^ 
TION,  OR  THEORY  OF  DOUBLE  SENSES. 

1.  The  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation  is  of  very 
great  antiquity.  It  was  in  use  among  the  Jews  before 
the  Christian  era.  Philo  was  an  allegorist ;  so  were 
Pantaenus  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  of  the  second 
century  and  in  the  Christian  church.  Origin  in  the 
third  century  took  greater  liberties  with  this  mode  of 
interpretation,  than  any  Christian  teacher  had  done  be- 
fore him.  Before  his  time  all  interpreters  explained  the 
narrations  and  laws  contained  in  the  Bible  according 
to  their  literal  meaning.  Origin  turned  a  large  part 
of  biblical  history  into  fables,  and  many  of  the  laws 
into  allegories.  In  doing  this  he  followed  the  track 
that  had  already  been  marked  out  in  the  school  of 
Ammonius  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  century. 

Ammonius  Saccas  an  Alexandrine  philosopher  of 
the  second  century,  opened  a  school  near  the  close  of 
the  century,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  that  sect  of 
philosophers  called  the  New  Platonic. 

His  object  was  to  bring  all  religions  and  all  sects 
of  philosophers  into  harmony.     He  taught  that  philo- 


44  THE  ALLEGORICAL  MODE 

sophy  was  first  produced  and  nurtured  among  the 
people  of  the  east.  That  it  was  cultivated  and  dis- 
seminated in  Egypt  by  Hermes,  and  that  it  passed 
thence  into  Greece,  and  was  explained  with  tolerable 
accuracy  and  correctness  by  Plato.  It  is  the  opinion 
of  many,  that  the  pretended  work  of  Hermes  and  Zo- 
roaster originated  in  the  schools  of  the  New  Plato- 
nics. 

In  order  to  reconcile  the  prevailing  religions  with 
his  philosophical  system,  Ammonius  turned  the  whole 
pretended  history  of  the  pagan  Gods  into  allegory. 
This  system  Origin  applied  with  specifications  and 
modifications  pecuUar  to  himself,  and  borrowed  from 
various  sources,  to  the  interpretation  of  the  sacred 
volume. 

Preceding  writers  had  resorted  to  allegories  princi- 
pally to  discover  predictions  of  future  events,  and  rules 
for  the  direction  of  life ;  he  resorted  to  them  princi- 
pally to  establish  his  favorite  system  of  heathen  phi- 
losophy on  a  scriptural  basis. 

The  Platonic  idea  of  a  two-fold  world,  a  visible 
and  invisible  one,  and  the  one  emblematical  of  the 
other,  lead  him  to  search  for  a  figurativ^e  description  of 
the  invisible  world,  in  the  inspired  history  of  this. 
He  supposed,  that  as  man  was  admitted  to  consist  of 
three  parts,  a  rational  mind,  a  sensitive  soul,  and  a 
visible  body,  so  the  Scriptures  have  a  three-fold  sense, 
a  literal,  moral,  and  mystical  or  spiritual  sense.  The 
mystical  or  spiritual  sense,  he  supposed,  acquainted  us 
with  the  nature,  state,  and  history  of  the  spiritual  and 
heavenly  world  ;  which  he  believed  to  have  been  made 
after  the  same  pattern  as  this. 


OF  INTERPRETATION,  ETC.  45 

The  mystic  sense  he  attributed  to  every  part  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures  ;  the  hteral  sense  was  only  partially 
diffused,  according  to  his  view,  some  passages  having 
no  literal  meaning  at  all. 

A  similar  system  of  allegorical  interpretation  has 
more  recently  been  inculcated  by  Swedenborg.  He 
attributes  to  the  sacred  Scriptures  three  senses,  which 
he  entides  the  literal,  spiritual,  and  celestial. 

While  both  the  systems  here  referred  to,  have  been 
generally  discarded  by  the  Christian  church,  multi- 
tudes in  all  ages  have  turned  Scripture  into  allagory 
for  the  purpose  of  rendering  particular  passages  of 
them  more  significant  than  they  would  otherwise  be, 
either  in  the  prediction  of  future  events  or  in  the  com- 
munication of  moral  and  religious  instruction. 

2.  The  allegorical  system  of  interpretation  is  built 
upon  what  is  called  the  doctrine  of  correspondences  ; 
namely,  that  there  is  such  a  correspondence  between 
natural  and  spiritual,  terrestrial  and  celestial  objects 
and  events,  as  to  make  the  former  correct  and  perfect 
types  of  the  latter.  If  the  doctrine  of  a  correspondence 
between  natural  and  spiritual,  terrestrial  and  celestial 
objects  and  events,  be  admitted  in  its  full  extent,  so 
that  the  one  is  an  exact  resemblance  of  the  other;  then 
all  descriptions  of  natural  objects  and  events,  as  well 
as  those  contained  in  Scripture,  may  be  considered 
figurative  of  spiritual  and  heavenly  things,  and  may 
be  applied  to  represent  such  things  with  the  utmost  pro- 
priety. The  principle  is  very  broad  and  extensive  in 
its  application.  It  applies  with  as  much  force  to  pro- 
fane as  to  sacred  history ;  and,  according  to  this  sys- 
tem of  philosophy,  (for  it  deserves  the  appellation  of  a 


46  THE  ALLEGORICAL  MODE 

system  of  philosophy,  rather  than  one  of  rehgion,  or  of 
interpretation)  all  profane  history  would  be  allegorical 
and  descriptive  of  spiritual  and  heavenly  things,  how- 
ever ignorant  the  authors  mig^ht  be  of  any  such  meaning 
being  attached  to  their  language. 

3.  But  the  doctrine  of  correspondences  is  no  where 
asserted  in  the  Bible.  The  inspired  writers  have  used 
figurative  language  just  as  they  might  be  expected  to 
do,  if  no  such  correspondence  existed  ;  and  the  use  of 
these  figures,  with  which  their  writings  abound,  is 
fully  authorized  by  that  principle  of  general  analogies 
which  is  the  foimdation  of  metaphorical  language 
among  uninspired  writers.  Figurative  language  may 
be  pressed  too  far.  We  are  "not  to  suppose  that  there 
is  a  perfect  resemblance  in  every  particular  wherever 
there  is  a  general  one  in  some  particulars.  Things 
resemble  each  other  which  have  some  things  in  com- 
mon. The  more  things  they  have  in  common  the 
greater  is  their  resemblance. 

Earth  resembles  heaven  just  as  far  as  it  has  things 
in  common  with  it.  Body  resembles  mind  just  as  far 
as  it  has  properties  in  common  with  it.  God  resembles 
the  sun,  to  which  he  is  several  times  compared,  just 
as  far  as  he  has  properties  and  relations  in  common 
with  it,  and  no  farther.  So  light  resembles  knowledge 
as  far  as  it  has  relations  and  properties  in  common  with 
it.  Light  and  vision  are  to  the  eye  what  knowledge 
is  to  the  soul ;  that  is,  their  relations  are  analogous. 
But  in  this  view  of  the  subject,  perfect  resemblance  of 
earthly  to  heavenly  objects  is  not  assumed ;  neither  is 
it  necessary  to  assume  it,  in  order  to  justify  the  ana- 
logical and  figurative  language  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 


OF  INTERPRETATION,  ETC.  47 

4.  Arguments  generally  adduced  in  favor  of  a 
double  sense  being  attributed  to  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures. 

1.  Unless  we  allow  them  to  have  other  meanings 
than  the  plain  and  obvious  one  according  to  the  com- 
mon rules  of  interpretation,  some  parts  of  the  sacred 
volume  will  become  uninstructive  and  unimportant. 
Answer.  The  knowledge  contained  in  the  Bible,  in- 
terpreted by  the  common  rules  of  interpretation,  is  of 
the  greatest  extent  and  highest  value.  It  is  a  fountain 
which  the  most  powerful  and  active  minds  have  been 
unable  to  fathom,  and  still  more  so,  to  exhaust.  Ex- 
plained on  these  principles  only,  it  teaches  the  purest 
morality,  and  the  sublimest  theology.  It  discloses 
the  only  way  of  life  and  salvation,  and  points  out 
the  only  effectual  means  of  regaining  the  favor  of 
God. 

Those  parts  of  the  Bible,  or  those  passages,  for  it  is 
only  to  occasional  passages  that  the  remark  can  be 
applied,  which  seem  unimportant  to  us,  may  have  been 
highly  important  and  useful  when  they  were  originally 
written,  or  may  be  still  so  in  some  future  period  of  the 
world,  without  any  aid  being  derived  from  the  theory 
of  double  senses  to  render  them  so. 

2.  It  is  also  urged,  that  on  the  hypothesis  of 
double  senses,  the  Bible  is  made  more  spiritual  than  on 
the  other  hypothesis.  Answer.  The  word  spiritual 
has  three  meanings.  1.  Consisting  of  spirit;  as  we 
say  of  the  mind,  it  is  a  spiritual  substance — a  substance 
consisting  of  spirit.  2.  Relating  to  spirit  and  the  concerns 
of  spirits,  as  we  speak  of  spiritual  enjoyments,  spiritual 


48  THE  ALLEGORICAL  MODE 

world,  (fee.  3.  Pious,  religious ;  as  we  say  of  a  pious 
man,  he  is  very  spiritual,  that  is,  h^  is  very  pious,  devout. 

The  appHcation  of  the  term  spiritual  to  the  Bible. 
in  the  first  sense,  is  absurd;  for  it  contradicts  our 
intuitive  perception.  We  know  by  the  evidence  of  our 
senses,  that  the  different  communications  which  com- 
pose the  Bible,  taken  separately,  and  the  whole  taken 
collectively,  are  not  spirit  in  the  literal  sense  of  that 
word.  They  do  not  consist  of  spirit,  that  is,  they  are 
not  a  living  reasoning  and  thinking  being. 

The  word  spiritual,  in  the  second  and  third  senses 
mentioned  above,  is  strictly  applicable  to  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  understood  according  to  the  common  rules 
of  interpretation.  They  relate  principally  to  spirits, 
and  the  concerns  and  destinies  of  spirits  ;  and  are  of 
a  highly  devotional  tendency.  Nay,  in  these  senses 
they  are  spiritual  in  the  highest  degree  ;  that  is  to  say. 
they  are  in  the  highest  degree  devotional,  and  relate 
entirely  to  spiritual  concerns. 

3.  It  is  further  urged  that  the  theory  of  double 
senses  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  divine  character 
and  operations  than  that  of  single  senses. 

Why  enigmatical  or  allegorical  discourses  are  more 
in  accordance  to  the  divine  operations  generally,  than 
plain  ones,  it  is  difficult  for  a  plain  man  to  conceive. 

God's  communications  must  be  in  accordance  to 
his  attributes.  One  of  his  attributes  is  truth :  His 
communications  must  therefore  be  true.  One  of  his 
attributes  is  justice ;  his  communications  and  require- 
ments must  therefore  be  just.  These  are  moral  attri- 
butes, and  give  character  to  the  divine  communica- 
tions, as  they  do  to  the  other  divine  operations.     The 


OF  INTERPRETATION,  ETC.  49 

same  may  be  said  of  wisdom,  mercy,  and  other  moral 
attributes  of  the  diviiae  character. 

But  you  cannot  with  propriety  add ;  God  is  an  Alle- 
gory, and  therefore  his  communications  must  be  alle- 
gorical— or  that  God  is  a  spirit  and  therefore  his  com- 
munications must  consist  of  spirit.  Man  too  is  a  spirit ; 
but  his  communications  do  not  consist  of  spirit.  The 
spirituality  of  the  communications  does  not  follow  as  a 
consequence  from  the  spirituality  of  the  agent  that 
makes  them.  Communications  are  only  one  class  of 
phenomena  resulting  from  the  divine  operations ;  and 
if  these  consist  of  spirit  so  must  all  such  phenomena. 

Besides  it  is  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  divine 
operations  and  according  to  the  attributes  of  the  divine 
character,  that  if  God  should  undertake  to  hold  inter- 
course with  men  throu2;h  the  medium  of  lano^uage  he 
would  use  language  as  men  use  it,  and  express  himself 
intelligibly.  No  communication  is  intelligible,  which 
is  not  contained  in  language  understood  by  man. 
God  has  made  his  communications  in  languages 
which  were  generally  understood  at  the  time  and  in 
the  countries  in  which  they  were  made,  and  which 
we  still  have  the  means  of  learnino^.  If  he  departed  in 
any  measure  from  the  common  usage,  in  the  applica- 
tion of  words  to  designate  objects  or  to  express  ideas, 
it  would  become  necessary  in  order  to  be  understood, 
to  show  how  far  and  in  what,  that  usage  was  depart- 
ed from.  No  such  explanation  is  found.  God  no 
where  intimates  that  the  meaning  he  attaches  to  words 
is  different  from  the  common  one,  neither  does  he  any 
where  intimate,  that  the  theory  of  double  senses  is  that 
according  to  which  he  requires  his  word  to  be  explained. 


50  THE  ALLEGORICAL  MODE 

5.  ADDITIONAL  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  THE  THEORY 
OF  DOUBLE  SENSES. 

1.  The  later  inspired  writers  often  quote  from  the 
writings  of  those  who  preceded  them ;  but  never  refer 
to  those  writings  as  having  more  than  one  true  mean- 
ing. In  Acts  2:  25,  we  find  a  quotation  of  this  kind ; 
as  also  in  Acts  13:  35 — 37.  It  is  evident  from  an 
inspection  of  these  passages,  that  the  apostles  con- 
sidered the  declaration  which  they  quoted,  as  referring 
solely  to  Christ,  and  not  to  David  at  all.  For  they 
expressly  assert  that  it  cannot  be  applied  to  David 
and  that  it  did  not  receive  its  fulfillment  in  him. 

2.  The  historical  parts  of  the  Bible  are  as  simple 
narratives  of  events  as  any  other  history,  and  have  no 
marks  of  allegorical  and  hidden  meanings,  that  other 
historical  writings  do  not  have.  Take  for  example  the 
histories  of  David,  Solomon,  Ahab,  Sec.  They  appear 
to  be  as  free  from  allegorical  and  hidden  meanings,  as 
the  histories  of  Constantine,  George  the  4th,  Calvin, 
Luther,  or  any  other  individuals,  narratives  of  whose 
lives  are  recorded. 

3.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  preceptive  parts  of 
the  Bible.  They  exhibit  no  marks  of  hidden  and  al- 
legorical senses  that  other  preceptive  writings  do  not 
exhibit.  The  laws  of  God  are  stated  with  as  much 
precision  and  with  as  much  apparent  si^mplicity  as  any 
intelligent  father  would  use,  in  giving  directions  to  his 
children.  The  command  thou  shalt  not  kill,  forbids 
our  unlawfully  taking  the  life  of  a  fellow  man,  and  of 
course  prohibits  all  those  angry  and  revengeful  feel- 
ings, that  lead  to  murder.     There  is  no  need  of  alle- 


OP  INTERPRETATION,  ETC.  51 

gorical  interpretation  to  give  such  ample  extent  to  this 
command.  It  is  already  sufiiciently  extensive  in  its 
meaning.  The  same  may  be  said  of  every  other  pre- 
cept. 

4.  The  origin  and  early  history  of  the  allegorical 
mode  of  interpretation  are  agains:  it.  Authentic  his- 
tory instead  of  referring  it  to  the  schools  of  the  prophets 
or  to  the  communications  of  divinely  inspired  men,  can 
trace  it  only  to  the  mystic  instructions  of  Jewish  Rab- 
bles, who  made  void  the  law  of  God  by  their  puerile 
traditions,  or  to  the  schools  of  heathen  philosophy 
whose  very  light  consisted  in  the  thickest  darkness  of 
paganism.  When  God  spake  to  Moses  from  the  burn- 
ing bush,  and  on  various  other  occasions,  his  words 
must  have  been  understood  according  to  their  usual 
meanings.  Moses  could  not  have  supposed  them  to 
mean  any  thing  more  or  less,  than  to  designate  those 
ideas  which  men  generally  attach  to  them.  When  God 
spoke  to  the  children  of  Israel  from  Mount  Sinai,  he 
must  have  been  understood  in  a  similar  manner  by 
them.  They  had  only  one  dictionary  by  which  to 
learn  the  meaning  of  words  whether  used  in  the  com- 
munications of  God  to  man,  or  of  man  to  his  God  and 
to  his  fellow  man. 

5.  If  God  had  intended  that  his  words  should  be 
interpreted  in  allegorical  senses,  and  that  other  mean- 
inofs  different  and  distinct  from  the  natural  one,  should 
be  conveyed,  we  should  suppose  of  course,  that  he 
would  have  intimated  that  fact  to  the  prophets  and 
have  authorized  them  to  have  revealed  it  to  the  church 
at  large ;  but  we  have  no  historical  evidence,  that  this 
was  ever  done,  neither  have  any  general  or  particular 


52  THE  ALLEGORICAL  MODE 

rules  been  giv^en  by  inspiration  according  to  which,  the 
investigation  of  hidden  senses  is  to  be  prosecuted. 

6.  Allegorical  interpretation  is  injurious  to  the  in- 
terests of  religion,  in  leading  persons  to  neglect  and 
undervalue  the  natural  sense  of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
In  these  writings  interpreted  according  to  the  common 
rules  and  principles  of  language,  are  treasured  up 
the  great  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion ;  doctrines  and  duties  by  which,  sinners  are  con- 
verted to  God,  and  saints  prepared  for  heaven.  If  the 
study  of  these  doctrines  and  the  practice  of  these 
duties  are  not  constantly  urged,  religion  can  hardly 
fail  to  decline.  A  system  of  interpretation  therefore, 
Avhich  leads  men  to  overlook  and  undervalue  them, 
must  be  of  highly  pernicious  tendency  and  this  is  cer- 
tainly in  many  instances  the  fact,  with  those  who 
adopt  the  allegorical  system  of  interpretation.  They 
puzzle  themselves  with  prying  into  supposed  alle- 
gories, when  they  ought  to  be  studying  faith,  repent- 
ance and  prayer. 

7.  Again,  in  multitudes  of  cases,  the  pretended  in- 
ternal senses  are  the  plain  and  obvious  meanings  of 
the  passages  to  which  they  are  attributed,  or  nothing 
more  than  obvious  inferences  from  those  meanings,  so 
that  there  is  no  need  of  other  rules  of  interpretation 
than  the  common  ones  to  elicit  them. 

We  ought  carefully  to  distinguish  between  the 
proper  meaning  of  a  passage,  and  the  inferences  which 
may  be  even  correctly  drawn  from  it.  For  example ; 
the  command  thou  shalt  not  kill,  means  thou  shalt  not 
unlawfully  take  human  life.  Inferences  however) 
which  may  be  drawn  from  it  are  exceedingly  uumer- 


OP  INTERPRETATION,  ETC.  53 

ous  and  various.  If  we  are  prohibited  from  inflicting 
death  on  the  body,  surely  it  must  be  wrong  for  us  vo- 
luntarily to  be  the  cause  of  the  eternal  death  of  the 
soul.  But  to  prohibit  inflicting  spiritual  injury,  so 
to  speak,  was  no  part  of  the  design  of  God,  in  the 
command  under  consideration.  But  though  it  was  no 
part  of  his  design  to  make  that  prohibition  in  this  pas- 
sage, yet  he  has  made  and  repeated  it  in  many  others, 
and  the  principle  on  which  it  is  founded,  is  the  same 
as  that  which  serves  as  the  foundation  of  the  prohibi- 
tion referred  to  in  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill," 
that  is,  thou  shalt  not  inflict  temporal  death.  The 
principle  of  this  and  of  every  other  prohibition  and 
of  every  other  command  relating  to  social  duties,  is 
'•  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself"  And  in 
applying  it  we  are  to  remember,  that  love  is  kind,  and 
that  it  worketh  no  ill  to  our  neighbor. 

8.  Finally,  according  to  the  common  rules  of  inter- 
pretation the  Bible  inculcates  every  moral  virtue,  and 
interdicts  every  species  of  sin,  at  the  same  time  that  it 
presents  the  strongest  motives  to  obedience  and  holds 
out  the  strongest  dissuasives  from  disobedience.  The 
theory  of  double  senses  therefore,  cannot  increase  the 
perfection  of  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  life,  it  being  already 
perfect  and  complete. 

From  all  which,  the  conclusion  is  obvious  and  irre- 
sistible, that  the  theory  of  double  senses,  or  in  other 
words,  the  system  of  mystical  and  allegorical  interpre- 
tation  is  wrong  and  injurious. 

5* 


SECTION    V. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES. 

The  prophetical  writings  of  the  sacred  Scriptures- 
are  almost  entirely  useless  to  a  lar^^e  portion  of  pro- 
fessed Christians,  from  the  imperfect  understanding 
they  have  of  them.  Prophecy  corresponds  to  history. 
It  is  a  narrative  or  description  of  events,  written  before 
the  events  take  place.  Both  prophecy  and  history  are 
expected  to  give  a  correct  and  true  delineation  of  the 
events  to  which  they  refer,  and  of  no  others.  In  many 
cases  the  language  of  prophecy  is  as  full  and  explicit 
as  it  is  possible  for  that  of  history  to  be.  In  many 
cases  prophecies  are  obscure,  especially,  where  they 
have  not  been  fulfilled ; — and  their  obscurity  arises 
principally  from  the  difficulty  of  determining  their 
chronology  ; — and  also  of  distinguishing  plain  from 
figurative  language. 

The  difficulty  of  determining  the  chronology  of 
events  referred  to  in  the  prophetical  writings,  occa- 
sions the  same  obscurity  in  the  prophecies,  which  a 
similar  indefiniteness  of  chronological  notices,  would 
occ£ision  in  history,  if  it  were  admitted  there. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES.  55 

The  diflaciilty  of  distinguishing  plain  from  figura- 
tive lancruage,  is  greater  in  prophetical  than  in  histori- 
cal writings,  on  account  of  our  not  being  able  to  com- 
pare the  description,  with  the  event,  as  we  uniformly 
do,  when  the  event  has  taken  place.  This  difficulty 
vanishes  when  the  prediction  is  fulfilled  and  is  known 
to  be  so. 

1.  The  first  step  to  be  taken  in  the  interpretation 
of  a  prophecy,  is  to  determine  if  possible,  the  time 
when  it  was  delivered,  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
prophet  and  people  at  that  time.  In  some  cases,  the 
time  is  expressly  declared,  as  Isa.  6:  1.  "  In  the  year 
that  king  Uzziah  died,  I  saw,"  6cc.  So  also  7:  1  of 
the  same  book,  which  was  at  least  seventeen  years 
later  than  that  of  the  preceding  chapter,  being  in  the 
time  of  Ahaz ;  and  the  reign  of  Jotham,  which 
continued  sixteen  years,  having  intervened. 

Sometimes  when  the  date  of  a  prophecy  is  not 
expressly  given,  it  may  be  inferred  from  some  expres- 
sion or  expressions  descriptive  of  the  existing  state  of 
things.     This  is  the  case  with  the  prophecy  contained 
in  the  first  chapter  of  Isaiah.    In  the  sixth  and  seventh 
verses  of  this  chapter,  the  land  of  Judah  is  described 
as  being  desolated  by  enemies,  and  the  condition  of  the 
people  as  being  one  of  extreme  depression.     By  turn- 
ing to  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles,  we  find, 
that  the  description   above  referred  to,  cannot  have 
indicated  the  state  of  things,  in  the  prosperous  reign 
of  Uzziah,  or  in  that  of  Jotham.     But  that  it  accords 
well  with  the  actual  state  of  the  country  in  the  reign 
of  Ahaz.    Hence  we  infer,  that  the  prophecy  contained 
in  this  chapter  was  delivered  in  the  reign  of  that  idola- 


56  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES. 

trous  and  unfortunate  monarch,  and  seventeen  years 
later  than  the  prophecy  contained  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  the  same  book. 

In  determining  the  times  of  the  deUvery  of  different 
prophecies  or  prophetical  discourses  ;  it  is  to  be  borne 
in  mind,  that  the  different  prophetical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  are  not  arranged  in  their  proper  chro- 
nological order. 

Jonah  prophecied  much  earlier  than  Isaiah,  not- 
withstanding his  book  is  placed  after  that  of  Isaiah, 
in  the  sacred  volume. 

The  principle  on  which  the  present  arrangement 
was  made,  was  to  place  the  prophetic  books  in  the 
order  of  their  comparative  lengths,  without  any 
regard  to  the  times  of  their  composition  and  delivery. 
A  similar  arrangement  was  adopted  in  regard  to  the 
epistles  of  the  New  Testament.  The  longer  epistles 
are  placed  before  the  shorter  in  the  order  of  their  com- 
parative lengths,  with  the  exception  that  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  for  par- 
ticular reasons,  stand  out  of  their  proper  order. 

In  addition  to  the  fact  that  the  arrangement  of  the 
prophetical  books  is  not  a  chronological  one ;  it  is 
worthy  of  particular  remark,  that  the  different  parts 
of  the  same  book  do  not  always  stand  in  their  proper 
chronological  order.  An  instance  of  this  has  already 
been  given  from  Isaiah,  others  might  easily  be  adduced 
from  the  longer  books  of  the  prophets.  This  irregu- 
larity arose  probably  from  the  different  prophetical 
discourses  having  been  published  separately ;  and 
when  they  came  to  be  collected  after  the  deaths  of 
those  prophets,  they  were  put  together  without  any 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES.  57 

very  thorough  investigation  of  the   order   in  which 
they  were  written  and  pnbhshed. 

2.  Having  ascertained  as  nearly  as  we  can,  the 
time  when  a  proplietical  discourse  or  poem  was 
dehvered,  we  are  prepared  to  proceed  intelhgently 
to  the  investiofation  of  that  discourse.  Here  we  are 
to  consider  that  every  discourse  has  a  beginning,  mid- 
dle, and  end  ;  and  that  these  are  in  many  cases  very 
different,  from  what,  the  division  into  chapters  would 
indicate.  We  are  not  to  take  it  for  granted  that  a  dis- 
course ends  with  a  chapter.  Discourses  are  sometimes 
continued  through  several  chapters  successively,  and 
every  part  ought  to  be  studied  in  connection  with  every 
other  part. 

3.  The  principal  subject  treated  of  in  every  pro- 
phetical discourse,  ought  to  be  carefully  ascertained 
and  descriptive  terms  interpreted  so  as  to  correspond 
with  the  subject.  If  there  is  an  incongruity  between 
any  of  those  terms  and  the  subject  to  which  they  relate 
when  understood  literally,  they  ought  to  be  interpreted 
figuratively,  as  in  historical  writino^s,  and  indeed  in  all 
other  kinds  of  composition.  Some  figurative  modes 
of  expression  acquire  a  fixed  and  certain  meaning 
from  established  usage  ;  as  using  the  term  days  to 
designate  years,  &-c.  The  abundant  use  made  of 
figures  of  speech  in  the  prophetical  writings,  renders 
the  interpretation  of  them  exceedingly  difficult.  This 
peculiarity  arises  in  part  perhaps,  from  those  writings 
having  been  composed  in  poetry,  which  is  character- 
istically figurative. 

4.  Events  which  are  represented  as  continuous, 
ought  to  be  carefully  distinguished.     Events  are  often 


58  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES. 

grouped  together  in  prophecy  as  well  as  in  other 
kinds  of  writing,  in  consequence  of  having  some  gene- 
ral relation  to  each  other,  which,  in  point  of  time,  are 
widely  separated.  We  are  not  to  infer,  because  events 
are  described  or  referred  to  in  immediate  succession, 
that  their  occurrence  will  be  in  immediate  succession 
too.  The  fact  is  sometimes  quite  the  reverse  of  this. 
Take,  for  example,  the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  The 
feeble  beginnings  of  it  are  mentioned  in  connection 
with  its  glorious  establishment  and  universal  preva- 
lence, and  yet  they  are  separated  by  centuries  of 
time. 

Inattention  to  this  point  has  occasioned  floods  of 
error  in  the  interpretation  of  prophetical  language 
both  in  ancient  and  modern  times. 

The  24th  chapter  of  Matthew  has  been  enveloped 
in  needless  obscurity  by  a  neglect  of  this  rule.  The 
subjects  treated  of  in  that  chapter,  are  mentioned  in  the 
2d  and  3d  verses — the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the 
future  coming,  or  second  advent  of  Christ,  and  the  end 
of  the  world  ;  events  perfectly  distinct,  though  treated 
of  continuously. 

To  the  29th  verse,  the  discourse  of  our  Saviour 
relates  evidently  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
From  the  29th  to  the  31st  inclusive,  it  treats  of  the 
second  advent  of  Christ,  and  of  preceding  and  attend- 
ing events.  The  33d,  34th,  and  35th  verses,  refer 
evidently  to  the  former,  under  the  appellation  these 
things.  The  36th,  and  the  following,  refer  to  the 
latter,  under  the  appellation  that  day,  an  appellation 
applied  to  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  in  other 
parts  of  the  sacred  volume.     See  2  Tim.  4:  7,  8, 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES.  59 

''  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of 
righteousness  which  the  Lord  the  righteous  judge  shall 
give  me  at  that  day" ;  that  is,  the  day  of  the  second 
advent  and  judgment. 

5.  Those  representations  of  the  future  are  to  be 
considered  figurative,  in  which  there  is  a  distinct  refer- 
ence to  earlier  occurrences  in  Jewish  or  general  his- 
tory. The  future  is  often  described  in  prophecy  by 
figurative  descriptions  borrowed  from  events  that  are 
past.  An  example  of  this  may  be  found  in  Isa.  11:  15, 
16,  where  it  is  said,  that  in  effecting  a  new  deliverance 
for  his  people,  "  the  Lord  will  utterly  destroy  the 
tongue  of  the  Egyptian  sea,  and  with  his  mighty  wind 
shall  he  shake  his  hand  over  the  river,  and  shall  smite 
it  in  the  seven  streams,  and  make  men  go  over  dry- 
shod,  and  there  shall  be  a  highway  for  the  remnant  of 
his  people,  which  shall  be  left  from  Assyria,  like  as  it 
was  to  Israel  in  the  day  that  he  came  up  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt."  This  destroying  of  the  Red  sea,  and 
making  a  passage  across  the  seven  streams  of  the  Nile, 
contain  an  evident  allusion  to  events  which  character- 
ized the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  and  forcibly  and  clearly 
leach  that  God  was  to  effect  a  wonderful  deliverance 
for  his  covenant  people,  but  not  that  he  was  literally  to 
dry  up  the  sea,  or  open  a  passage  through  the  river. 
So  also  in  Isa.  4:  .5.  '•  And  the  Lord  will  create  upon 
every  dwelling  place  of  Mount  Zion  and  upon  her 
assemblies,  a  cloud  and  smoke  by  day,  and  the  shining 
of  a  flame  of  fire  by  night,  for  upon  all  the  glory  shall 
be  a  defence."  This  passage  contains  an  allusion  to 
the  cloudy  and  fiery  pillar  which  God  exhibited  to 
the  Israelites  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  and 


60  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES. 

which  was  rendered  both  the  guide  and  protection  of 
that  people  during  their  perilous  journey.  The  mean- 
ing of  it  is,  that  at  the  time  referred  to,  God  will  grant 
special  protection  to  his  children,  as  much  as  if  every 
assembly  for  his  worship,  and  every  dwelling  of  his 
worshippers  were  surrounded  wit?i  the  cloud  of  the 
divine  presence  in  the  day  time,  and  with  the  fire  by 
night. 

Zechariah  10:  11,  and  Hosea  2:  14,  15,  afford 
examples  of  a  similar  nature. 

6.  Those  representations  of  the  future  are  to  be 
considered  figurative,  in  which  there  is  a  distinct  refer- 
ence to  the  Levitical  rites  and  ceremonies.  This  rule  is 
similar  to  the  preceding,  and  is  founded  on  the  same 
principle,  a  principle  which  prompts  us  intuitively  to 
represent  and  describe  things  unknown  by  imagery 
drawn  from  such  as  are  known.  The  modes  o^ 
Christian  worship  were  to  the  pious  in  the  days  of  the 
Old  Testament  prophets,  things  unknown,  though  the 
principles  of  it  are  the  same  as  they  ever  have  been. 
It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  the  prophets  should 
array  the  religion  of  future  times  in  the  pious  garb  with 
which  the  saints  of  that  age  were  familiar. 

An  example  of  this  may  be  found  in  Jer.  33:  17,  18, 
"  For  thus  saith  the  Lord,  David  shall  never  want  a 
man  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  the  house  of  Israel ; 
neither  shall  the  priests,  the  Levites,  want  a  man 
before  me  to  offer  burnt  offerings,  and  to  kindle  meat 
offerings,  and  to  do  sacrifice  continually." 

This  passage  relates  evidently  to  the  times  of  the 
Messiah.  To  make  it  assert  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Levitical  rites  and  ceremonies,  would  be  an  utter  per- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES.  61 

version  of  its  true  meaning,  inasmuch,  as  according  to 
that  construction,  the  assertion  it  contains  is  entirely 
false  in  fact,  and  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  a  different 
and  new  dispensation  to  commence  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Messiah,  which  the  prophets  had  clearly  pre- 
dicted. 

Instead,  therefore,  of  considering  it  as  asserting 
the  perpetuity  of  the  Levitical  rites,  we  ought  to  view 
it  as  declaring  the  continued  and  universal  prevalence 
of  the  true  worship  of  God,  and  that  in  language,  and 
by  the  aid  of  imagery,  best  adapted  to  the  imperfect 
knowledge  of  those  times. 

7.  Those  representations  of  the  future  in  which 
there  is  a  distinct  reference  to  persons  who  had  lived 
previoQS  to  the  time  of  the  prophecy,  are  to  be  con- 
sidered as  figurative. 

Of  this  kind,  is  that  prediction  contained  in  Mai. 
4 :  5.  "  Behold  1  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet  before 
the  coming  of  the  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord, 
and  he  shall  turn  the  heart,"  &c. 

Not  that  Elijah  should  come  in  person,  but  that 
one  should  come  of  his  fervent,  ardent  and  faithful 
spirit,  to  perform  the  office  referred  to. 

8.  Figurative  and  literal  expressions  are  often 
blended  in  prophecy,  so  as  to  require  much  care  and 
attention  in  discriminating  between  them.  In  such 
cases,  the  literal,  when  ascertained,  must  be  allowed  to 
explain  and  modify  the  figurative  ;  and  one  part  of  a 
prophecy  must  be  interpreted  in  consistency  with  other 
parts  of  the  same.  Because  some  part  of  a  prophetic 
description  is  figurative,  we  are  not  to  infer  that  the 
whole  is,  neither  because  some  part  of  it  is  to  be  under- 

6 


62  INTERPRETATION  OP  THE  PROPHECIES. 

Stood  literally,  are  we  to  infer  that  the  whole  is  to  be  so 
understood,  any  more  than  we  should  make  the  same 
inference  in  regard  to  history  or  any  other  kind  of 
poetry  than  the  prophetic. 

9.  The  prophecies  are  to  be  considered  as  consti- 
tuting one  connected  chain  of  events  and  are  to  be 
interpreted  so  as  to  harmonize  with  each  other.  All 
such  interpretations  of  them  as  set  them  at  variance 
with  one  another,  are  manifestly  wrong,  and  deroga- 
tory to  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Every  part  of  the  pro- 
phetic writings  has  some  relation  to  other  parts  of 
the  same  ;  just  as  every  part  of  a  well  written  history, 
has  some  relation  to  other  parts  of  the  same.  In  or- 
der to  understand  one  part  of  the  prophecies  well,  we 
must  study  the  whole.  For  example,  in  order  to  un- 
derstand well  one  part  of  Isaiah,  we  must  study  the 
whole  of  that  distinguished  prophet ;  and  in  order  to 
understand  well  that  prophet,  we  must  study  the 
rest  of  the  prophets,  both  Old  Testament  and  New ; 
so  intimately  are  the  prophetical  v/ritings  connected, 
and  so  happily  and  forcibly  do  they  illustrate  each 
other. 

10.  No  prophecy  is  to  be  interpreted  as  having 
more  than  one  true  meaning,  however  comprehensive 
it  may  be,  and  to  whatever  length  of  time  it  may 
relate.  The  obscurity  of  this  part  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures and  the  sudden  transitions  they  contain,  from 
one  subject  and  from  one  event  to  another,  have  led 
biblical  scholars  to  apply  to  theuj  the  theory  of  allegori- 
cal senses,  more  frequently  and  confidently  than  to  other 
parts  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  It  has  been  very  conve- 
nient to  suppose  that  many  prophecies  have  received 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES.  63 

one  fulfillment  in  events  that  transpired  at  one  time, 
and  that  they  waited  till  a  more  remote  period  for 
another  full  accomplishment.  This  system  of  inter- 
pretation has  the  recommendation  of  convenience  in 
helping  us  to  get  comfortably  around  difficulties,  which 
on  the  other  plan,  we  must  look  full  in  the  face  and 
boldly  encounter. 

But  it  is  unsatisfactory  and  unphilosophical.  Be- 
sides, the  principle  is  just  as  inappropriate  to  pro- 
phecy as  it  is  to  history.  The  idea  of  describing  two 
events  at  one  dash,  whether  past  or  to  come,  appears 
absurd.  It  is  what  man  never  attempted  to  do  in 
works  of  moral,  religious  or  scientific  instruction. 
God  has  never  commanded  us  to  compass  the  im- 
possibihty  of  making  out  primary  and  secondary 
senses  to  the  simple  and  ample  disclosures  of  his 
word.  No  sober  scholar  thinks  of  giving  a  double 
sense  to  history ;  why  then  obtrude  it  upon  prophecy? 
Why  consider  God  in  this  part,  and  in  this  part  only  of 
his  word,  as  departing  from  the  universal  rules  of  human 
composition  and  language.  But  if  we  drive  the  theory 
of  double  senses  from  one  part  of  the  sacred  volume, 
we  may  by  the  same  weapons  and  by  the  same  sys- 
tem of  warfare  drive  it  from  every  part  of  that  blessed 
book,  around  which  it  has  thrown  such  a  mist  of  ab- 
surdity. 

11.  The  prophetical  writings  ought  to  be  studied 
in  connection  with  the  historical  parts  of  Scripture. 
In  the  first  place,  we  ought  to  make  ourselves  famil- 
iarly acquainted  with  the  state  of  things,  when  the 
prophetical  discourse  we  are  studying,  was  delivered. 
This  will  elucidate  many  passages  which  to  one  des- 


64  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE    PROPHECIES. 

titute  of  tliat  knowledge  would  be  necessarily  ob- 
scure. 

In  the  second  place,  we  ought  to  make  ourselves  fa- 
miliar with  the  history  of  events  to  which  the  prophe- 
cy we  are  investigating  relates.  Prediction  derives  il- 
lustration from  the  history  of  the  event  to  which  it  re- 
lates, just  as  a  description  in  geography,  is  rendered 
more  clear  by  a  map  representing  to  the  eye  the  places 
described.  The  history  of  events  which  were  the  ful- 
fillment of  prophecy  is  contained  partly  in  the  sacred 
volume,  and  is  to  be  sought  for  partly  in  the  records 
of  profane  history.  A  large  number  of  the  prophecies 
have  the  history  of  their  fulfillment  in  the  later  portions 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  This  is  the  case,  with  many 
of  the  predictions  which  relate  to  the  fortunes  of  the 
Jewish  nation — the  Messiah,  and  the  first  establishment 
of  his  kingdom  in  the  Christian  dispensation,  &c ;  also 
several  predictions  relating  to  the  fortunes  of  ancient 
heathen  nations. 

12.  Those  interpretations  of  prophecy  in  which 
the  events  supposed  to  be  pointed  out,  do  not  corres- 
pond to  the  prediction,  must  be  false.  This  rule  shows 
the  fallacy  and  incorrectness  of  those  interpretations  of 
the  24th  and  25th  of  Matthew,  which  refer,  all  the  pre- 
dictions contained  in  them,  to  the  destruction  of  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  and  to  contempora- 
neous and  preceding  events. 

The  prophetic  account  of  the  advent  of  Christ, 
given  in  those  chapters,  and  of  the  general  judgment 
in  which  all  nations  are  to  be  concerned,  and  their 
destinies  of  weal  or  woe  decided  upon,  has^^nothing  in 
the  history  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  con- 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHECIES.  65 

temporaneous  events,  which  answers  to  it.  There 
was  no  visible  advent  of  Christ  at  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem ;  there  was  no  general  judgment  at  that 
time  more  than  at  other  times  :  there  was  no  receiving 
of  the  righteous  into  glory,  and  banishment  of  the 
wicked  into  hell,  at  that  time,  more  than  at  other  times. 
For  these  reasons,  therefore,  as  well  as  others,  we  may- 
conclude,  that  all  the  predictions  contained  in  these 
chapters  did  not  receive  their  fulfillment  at  the  time 
referred  to. 

The  accomplishment  of  prophecy  may  be  gradual ; 
it  may  extend  through  a  series  of  years,  and  embrace 
like  history  many  subordinate  events,  but  it  must  have 
one  true  proper  fulfillment. 

A  person  who  understands  the  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion for  prophetical  language,  and  who  endeavors  to 
follow  them,  may,  in  some  cases,  be  mistaken,  but  one 
who  does  not  understand  and  observe  them,  will  be 
almost  sure  to  err  in  numberless  instances.  And  it  will 
be  found  equally  true  in  this,  and  in  every  other  de- 
partment of  sacred  learning,  that  the  hand  of  the  dili- 
gent maketh  rich  in  knowledge  as  well  as  wealth. 
Search  therefore,  diligently,  intelligently,  prayerfully, 
the  Scriptures;  "for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have 
eternal  life,"  and  the  gospel  which  they  communi- 
cate, "is  the  power  of  God  to  salvation." 


SECTION    VI. 

ON  THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE, 
CONSIDERED  AS  CONTAINING  A  SYSTEM  OF 
PURE  MORALITY  AND  RELIGION. 

1.  Moral  and  religious  truths  are  not  like  objects 
of  sense,  that  force  themselves  upon  the  attention  of 
every  beholder.  They  cannot  be  understood  without 
reflection  and  study.  Men  must  think  in  order  to 
apprehend  them  aright.  The  subject  of  morals  is  in 
its  nature,  a  complicated,  and  in  some  of  its  facts  and 
relations,  a  diflicult  subject.  It  is  open  to  the  studious, 
candid,  persevering  inquirer  ;  but  its  truths  do  not 
eifectually  catch  the  eye  and  captivate  the  heart  of 
the  superficial,  impatient  and  uncandid  dogmatist. 

In  this  respect  the  Bible  is  like  other  books  which 
relate  to  difficult  subjects.  Works  on  natural  philo- 
sophy, mathematics,  and  other  branches  of  science, 
though  prepared  with  ever  so  much  ability,  and  ever 
so  well  adapted  to  the  human  mind,  cannot  be  under- 
stood without  patient  persevering  study. 

2.  As  far  as  the  subjects  treated  of  in  the  Bible, 
come  within  the  sphere  of  human  observation,  ex- 
amine those  subjects  particularly ;  and  compare  them 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE,  ETC.  67 

with  the  descriptions  of  them  and  references  to  them, 
contained  in  the  Bible.  This  rule  is  one  of  funda- 
mental importance.  When  you  read  of  man,  as 
described  in  the  Bible,  look  at  him  as  living  and  acting 
in  the  world.  Let  the  theoretical  views  of  the  Bible 
in  relation  to  subjects  of  this  kind,  be  illustrated  by- 
living  e:j^amples  of  that  to  which  they  refer.  The 
examples  will  illustrate  and  explain  the  theory  better 
than  it  can  possibly  be  explained  in  any  other 
way. 

3.  In  all  matters  of  duty  practice  as  well  as  theo- 
rize. Even  in  the  sciences,  the  path  of  experiment  is 
the  most  direct,  and  in  some  cases,  the  only  way  to 
knowledge.  This  is  emphatically  the  case  in  regard- 
to  the  most  spiritual  parts  of  the  Christian  system. 
They  cannot  be  correctly  understood  and  appreciated 
by  the  cold  calculating  theorist,  while  he  continues 
such.  Colors  must  be  viewed  with  the  natural  eye 
in  order  that  we  may  understand  them  correctly,  and 
be  able  to  distinguish  one  from  another.  Mere  des- 
cription can  never  give  us  adequate  ideas  in  relation 
to  colors,  except  in  connection  with  our  own  experi- 
mental knowledge.  So  in  regard  to  holiness.  We 
must  understand  it  experimentally  in  order  to  under- 
stand it  thoroughly.  The  necessity  of  practice,  or  in 
other  words,  of  obedience,  is  expressly  declared  by 
our  Saviour  in  John  7:  17,  where  he  says,  that  if  any 
man  does  the  will  of  God,  he  shall  know  of  his  doc- 
trine, whether  it  be  divine.  This  passage  implies 
evidently,  that  without  practicing  obedience,  the  know- 
ledge referred  to  will  not  be  attained. 


68  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE,    ETC. 

A  man  must  practice  morality  in  order  to  under- 
stand and  appreciate  the  pure  Gospel  system,  as  it  re- 
lates to  this  subject :  He  must  in  hke  manner  practice 
the  duties  of  rehgion  if  he  would  rightly  understand  and 
appreciate  them,  as  taught  in  the  Bible.  Much  of  the 
error  of  the  religious  world,  arises  from  a  disposition 
to  theorize  without  experiment.  Theorists  have  not 
benefitted  and  adorned  the  walks  of  physical  science, 
except  so  far  as  their  theories  have  gone  hand  in  hand 
with  experiment ;  and  I  apprehend  that  the  same 
principle  will  hold  true,  in  relation  to  the  higher  depart- 
ments of  moral  and  theological  science. 

Immorality  blunts  the  moral  sense,  and  in  that 
way  incapaciates  men,  in  a  measure,  for  the  successful 
investigation  of  moral  subjects.  This  is  exemplified 
in  the  case  of  the  drunkard,  the  sensualist,  the  thief, 
the  liar,  and  every  other  class  of  immoral  men,  that 
can  be  named.  There  is  no  exception.  It  is  no 
wonder,  therefore,  that  such  persons,  while  they  con- 
tinue such,  should  be  unable  to  interpret  correctly 
those  parts  of  the  Scriptures,  which  relate  to  a  pure 
morality.  It  is  their  vice  which  obscures  their  intel- 
lectual and  moral  vision,  that  they  cannot  see.  It 
is  their  vice  which  casts  in  dread  eclipse  the  glorious 
sun  of  righteousness,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  and 
shrouds  them  in  fatal  darkness.  Every  act  of  immo- 
rality contributes  to  harden  the  heart,  to  darken  the 
mind,  to  stupify  the  conscience.  Every  act  of  impiety 
has  the  same  efiect.  The  hardening  and  blinding 
influence  of  impiety,  is  more  concealed,  than  that  of 
immorality ;  but  it  is  not  more  certain. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE.    ETC.  69 

The  moralist  that  Uves  an  irreUgious  Ufe,  as  every 
unconverted  man  does,  is  found  to  be  as  hardened  and 
Winded  in  his  irrehgion  as  the  sensuaUst,  or  gambler, 
or  liar,  is  in  his  immorality. 

"When  a  man's  objections  to  divine  truth  whether 
relating  to  morality  or  religion  strictly  so  called,  arise 
from  immorality,  or  irreligion  of  heart  and  life,  the 
soundest  and  most  conclusive  reasonings,  if  not  direct- 
ed against  these  real  and  proper  causes  of  the  error, 
are  expended  in  vain. 

4.  Lastly,  reduce  your  knowledge  to  system  as  fast 
as  you  acquire  it.  This  can  be  done  to  a  greater  or 
less  extent  by  ev^ery  intelligent  person,  that  is,  by  every 
one  that  has  common  intelligence.  I  would  not  flatter 
every  Christian  with  the  hope  of  becoming  a  profound 
divine.  That  attainment  is  perhaps  within  the  reach 
of  but  few.  But  I  would  hold  out  to  every  one  the 
hope  of  becoming  a  sound,  intelligent  Christian.  Sys- 
tematic knowledge  is  the  most  perfect  knowledge. 
This  holds  true  in  relation  to  all  subjects  secular  and 
religious.  Those  views  of  science  which  are  not  sys- 
tematic, have  never  been  considered  as  constituting 
adequate  knowledge.  When  persons  undertake  to 
teach  the  sciences,  they  do  it  in  a  systematic  manner. 
They  cannot  do  it  to  advantage  in  any  other  manner. 
So  when  persons  study  the  sciences,  they  generally 
study  them  systematically,  beginning  with  the  elemen- 
tary principles,  and  ascending  gradually  and  progres- 
sively to  those  parts  which  are  abstruse  and  complica- 
ted. By  proceeding  in  this  manner  every  part  of 
science  is  easy ;  but  reverse  the  process,  and  not  a 
single  science  would  be  attainable  by  ordinary  capaci- 


70  INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIELE,    ETC. 

ties.  The  whole  round  of  learning,  which  is  now 
simple,  and  easily  attained,  if  studied  as  many  under- 
take to  study  the  Bible,  beginning  with  the  darkest 
and  most  complicated  portions  of  it,  would  be  utterly 
unintelligible  ;  and  universal  skepticism,  or  in  other 
words,  universal  ignorance  would  unavoidably  ensue. 
Begin,  then,  with  the  elementary  principles  of  religion  ; 
learn  them,  and  ascend  gradually  as  you  are  able,  to 
its  higher  and  more  difficult  doctrines.  In  this  way, 
the  light  of  that  which  is  simple,  may  be  made  to 
dispel  the  darkness,  and  remove  the  difficulties,  in 
which  more  obscure  portions  of  the  word  of  God  are 
involved. 

Catechisms  and  well  written  systems  of  divinity 
may  be  of  very  essential  service  in  the  systematic 
study  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  It  is  on  this  ground 
that  the  use  of  such  works  by  students  in  theology 
has  been  so  generally  approved  by  the  pious  and  in- 
telUgent  of  different  denominations.  All  intelligent 
Christians  may  use  these  to  advantage,  not  as  ultimate 
sources  of  information,  but  as  helps  to  the  systematic 
study  of  the  Bible, 


RECOMMENDATORY    LETTERS 


The  following  letters  from  gentlemen  whose  studies 
have  been  directed  to  the  subject  of  Interpretation,  and 
who  enjoy,  in  a  high  degree,  the  confidence  of  the  Christ- 
ian public,  show  in  what  light  the  foregoing  work  is  viewed 
by  their  respective  authors. 


Rev.  George  Bush,  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Oriental 
Literature,  in  the  New-York  University,  writes  as  follows  : 

New-York  J  May  10,  1834. 
Mr.  Sawyer  : 

Dear  Sir — At  your  request  I  have  given  an  una- 
voidably hasty  perusal  to  the  little  treatise  on  the  Elements 
of  Biblical  Interpretation.  Both  the  plan  and  the  execu- 
tion of  the  work  in  their  general  features  meet  my  cordial 
approbation.  Perhaps,  indeed,  if  rigidly  interrogated  I 
might  hesitate  in  giving  a  full  assent  to  some  few  of  its 
positions,  as  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  invest  the  principles 
of  this  science,  particularly  as  they  relate  to  Prophecy  and 
the  Double  Sense,  with  a  demonstrative  certainty.  But  on 
the  whole  I  consider  your  work  a  valuable  ac&gssion  to  the 
department  to  which  it  belongs.  It  is  clear,'  simple,  pre- 
cise, well-reasoned  and  well-arranged — the  first  ranuisites 
in  any  elementary  work.  Being  free  from  scholastic  tech- 
nicalities, it  is  well  adapted  to  popular  use,  while  the 
graver  studies  of  the  divine  and  the  critic  will  be  aided  by 
its  valuable  hints. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

•  Geo.  Bush. 


Rev.  A.  Barnes,  of  the  First  Church,  Philadelphia. 

Mr.  Sawyer. 

I  have  at  your  request  given  a  perusal  to  your  little 
;ivork  on  the  Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  With  the 
sentiments  expressed  \\y^  Prof  Bush  in  regard  to  it,  I  am 


RECOMMENDATORY    LETTERS. 

happy  to  concur.  Such  a  work  seems  to  me  to  be  much 
demanded,  and  adapted  to  do  much  good.  The  great  mass 
of  Christians  have  not  access  to  the  larger  works  on  this 
science  ;  and  yet  nothing  in  my  view,  is  more  important  in 
the  promotion  of  humble,  and  enlightened  piety  than  a 
correct  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
Bible.  Nothing,  I  am  satisfied,  will  tend  more  to  suppress 
wild,  irregular,  and  fanatical  views  of  divine  truth,  than 
such  views  of  interpretation.  To  every  effort,  therefore, 
to  promote  such  knowledge,  I  am  happy  to  express  my 
earnest  wish  of  success. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

Albert  Barnes. 
Philadelphia,  May  20,  1834. 


Rev.   C.   Hodge,  Professor   of  Biblical   and  Oriental 
Literature  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  Princeton. 

To  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sawyer  : 
My  Dear  Sir, 

As  the  sacred  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  guide 
to  the  knowledge  of  divine  truth,  it  is  evident,  that  their 
right  interpretation  is  a  matter  of  vital  importance.  It  is 
not  ministers  alone  to  whom  this  interpretation  belongs  ; 
it  is  at  once  the  privilege  and  duty  of  every  reader  of  the 
Bible  to  endeavor  to  ascertain  its  true  meaning.  I  there- 
fore rejoice  that  you  have  been  led  to  prepare  a  work 
designed  for  the  instruction  of  general  readers  on  this 
importa»nt  subject.  As  far  as  I  have  had  the  opportunity 
of  examining  your  treatise,  I  think  it  well  adapted  to  the 
object  you  have  in  view.  The  portions  on  the  Double 
Sense,  and  the  Interpretation  of  Prophecy,  I  have  not 
read,  and  therefore  cannot  say  how  far  our  views  on  those 
points  may  differ. 

Yours  respectfully, 

C.  Hodge. 


SKT 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


D^C 


12Nov'62BP 


REC  P  LP 


nCTl2'64-4PM 


tjyta.?,'970(^^ 


i?£G'Din     JUL  13  70 -8  AM  2  2 


^3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


